Notice of meeting and agenda
The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00 am, Thursday, 21 August 2014 Council Chamber, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh
This is a public meeting and members of the public are welcome to attend
C o n tac t Contact E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: 0131 529 4246 1. Order of business
1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting.
2. Declaration of interests
2.1 Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest.
3. Deputations
3.1 If any
4. Minutes
4.1 The City of Edinburgh Council of 26 June 2014 – submitted for approval as a correct record
4.2 The City of Edinburgh Council of 26 June 2014 – submitted for approval as a correct record
5. Questions
5.1 By Councillor Heslop – Processions and Demonstrations – for answer by the Convener of the Regulatory Committee
5.2 By Councillor Rust – Office Space in the City Chambers – for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee
5.3 By Councillor Rust – Wellington School – for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee
6. Leader’s Report
6.1 Leader’s report
7. Appointments
7.1 Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy – report by the Director of Corporate Governance (circulated)
7.2 Management Committee - Community One Stop Shop, Broomhouse, Edinburgh – report by the Acting Director of Services for Communities (circulated)
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2 of 6 8. Reports
8.1 Liberton High School –report by the Director of Children and Families (circulated)
8.2 Supporting Veterans with Disabilities – report by the Acting Director of Services for Communities (circulated)
8.3 Proposed Acquisition of Custom House, Leith – report by the Director of Corporate Governance (circulated)
8.4 Treasury Management : Annual Report 2013/14 – referral from the Finance and Resources Committee (circulated)
Note: Members are advised that the report at 8.4 above includes an option which, if accepted, would require a change to Act of Council No 7 of 29 May 2014. This decision can only be changed if the Lord Provost rules a material change in circumstances.
8.5 Report of Pre-determination Hearing - 545 Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh - (Edmonstone Estate) (Land 447 metres north east of)
a) report by the Acting Director of Services for Communities (circulated)
b) referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee (circulated)
9. Motions
9.1 By Councillor Burns – Gaza – Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Appeal
“The City of Edinburgh Council:
1) has been deeply appalled and distressed to witness the recent loss of life in Gaza;
2) stands in solidarity with the innocent civilians of Gaza, who have lost more than 1,900 people, many of whom have been women and children;
3) supports an immediate ceasefire, as called for by the United Nations.
Council thus agrees:
4) to send a letter from the Council Leader, to the President of the State of Palestine, offering the City’s condolences for the deaths they have suffered;
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3 of 6 5) to send a letter from the Council Leader, to the Israeli Consulate in London, condemning in the strongest possible terms, the killing of hundreds of innocent civilian men, women and children.
Council also agrees:
6) to fly a ‘Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Appeal’ flag, at the City Chambers entrance on the High Street, which will prominently feature the DEC Gaza Appeal telephone donation line: 0370 60 60 900; and
7) to promote the DEC Gaza Appeal via its own external, and internal, websites.”
9.2 By Councillor Booth – Flying the Palestinian Flag from the City Chambers
“Council:
1) Notes the continued conflict in Gaza, which has lead to the deaths of 67 Israelis and more than 1800 Palestinians, including many innocent civilians, and which has included attacks on UN schools which have been labelled a moral outrage and a criminal act by Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations;
2) Notes the appeal recently launched by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), comprising 13 UK charities, to help the people of Gaza, including the estimated 65,000 people who have seen their homes severely damaged or destroyed and the estimated tens of thousands who urgently need food, water and medical care;
3) Believes the ongoing conflict is unacceptable, condemns any ongoing violence and calls on all sides to work for peace and a stable two-state solution in Palestine;
4) Agrees to fly the Palestinian flag from the City Chambers in a gesture of solidarity with the people of Gaza wherever this does not clash with the pre-existing flag flying programme;
5) Agrees to ask the Council Leader to contact the Disasters Emergency Committee to explore any further measures the Council can take to support the people of Gaza and support the DEC appeal.”
Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4 of 6 Information about the City of Edinburgh Council meeting
The City of Edinburgh Council consists of 58 Councillors and is elected under proportional representation. The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets once a month and the Lord Provost is the Convener when it meets.
The City of Edinburgh Council usually meets in the Council Chamber in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery and the Council meeting is open to all members of the public.
Further information
If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Allan McCartney, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2.1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh EH8 8BG, Tel 0131 529 4246, e-mail [email protected].
A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh.
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. For remaining items of business likely to be considered in private, see separate agenda.
Webcasting of Council meetings
Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Lord Provost will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.
You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy including, but not limited to, for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available via the Council’s internet site.
Generally the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the use and storage of those images and sound recordings and any information pertaining to you contained in them for web casting and training purposes and for the purpose of keeping historical records and making those records available to the public.
Any information presented by you to the Council at a meeting, in a deputation or otherwise, in addition to forming part of a webcast that will be held as a historical record, will also be held and used by the Council in connection with the relevant matter until the matter until that matter is decided or otherwise resolved (including The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 5 of 6 any potential appeals and other connected processes). Thereafter, that information will continue to be held as part of the historical record in accordance with the paragraphs above.
If you have any queries regarding this, and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact Committee Services on 0131 529 4105 or [email protected].
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 6 of 6 Minutes Item No 4.1
The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00am, Thursday 26 June 2014
Present:-
LORD PROVOST
The Right Honourable Donald Wilson
COUNCILLORS
Elaine Aitken Ricky Henderson Robert C Aldridge Dominic R C Heslop Norma Austin Hart Lesley Hinds Nigel Bagshaw Allan G Jackson Gavin Barrie Karen Keil Angela Blacklock David Key Chas Booth Richard Lewis Mike Bridgman Alex Lunn Deidre Brock Melanie Main Steve Burgess Mark McInnes Andrew Burns Adam McVey Ronald Cairns Eric Milligan Steve Cardownie Joanna Mowat Maggie Chapman Gordon J Munro Maureen M Child Jim Orr Bill Cook Lindsay Paterson Nick Cook Ian Perry Gavin Corbett Alasdair Rankin Cammy Day Vicki Redpath Denis C Dixon Keith Robson Karen Doran Cameron Rose Paul G Edie Jason G Rust Catherine Fullerton Alastair Shields Nick Gardner Stefan Tymkewycz Paul Godzik David Walker Joan Griffiths Iain Whyte Bill Henderson Norman Work
1. Report from Mortonhall Investigation Undertaken by Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC and Action Plan by Multi Agency Working Group a) Deputation - Mortonhall Ashes Action Committee
The deputation thanked Dame Elish Angiolini for her report, Dorothy Maitland for initially raising concerns which instigated the investigation, and Sue Bruce, Chief Executive, for her prompt actions in setting up a Working Group immediately following the report being published.
The deputation indicated that some parents still wished to have a public hearing to ensure that those who were responsible were brought into a Court of Law to give evidence under oath. They also felt that some witnesses had not been heard and felt that it was important that they were.
The deputation stressed that the inconsistencies of the work practices at Mortonhall should never be repeated. b) Report by the Chief Executive
The Transport and Environment Committee had agreed to commission an independent investigation into practices at Mortonhall Crematorium regarding the cremation of foetuses, stillborn and neonatal babies.
Following receipt of the Mortonhall Investigation Report, the Council had agreed to set up a Multi Agency Working Group comprising representatives from Scottish Government, NHS Lothian, Funeral Directors, Edinburgh Crematorium Ltd., SANDS Lothians, Sands UK, SiMBA, Mortonhall Ashes Action Committee and Council officials to consider the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Investigation Report.
Details were provided on the work of the Group which had drawn up an action plan and programme for future collaborative working to ensure that changes were implemented across all partner organisations with the aim of improving services to bereaved parents.
Decision
1) To note the contents of the Mortonhall Investigation Report produced by Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC and in particular its conclusions and recommendations.
2) To recognise the significant impact on parents of what took place and to reiterate the apology from the City of Edinburgh Council for the pain and distress caused.
3) To endorse the Action Plan drawn up by the multi agency working group and agree the actions proposed which would include collegiate working with those
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 2 of 3 progressing the recommendations from the Infant Cremation Commission conducted by Lord Bonomy.
4) To support the way forward including participation in decision making by bereaved parents, co-operation and collaboration on policy making with all partners including Scottish Government, NHS Lothian and funeral directors and a culture of transparency and parity of esteem.
5) To request that the working group continue to meet to ensure that the action plan was fully discharged and report back in 12 months time.
6) To agree that a progress report be taken to the Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee on 4 November 2014.
(References; Transport and Environment Committee 15 January 2013 (item 15); Act of Council No 2 of 1 May 2014; report by the Chief Executive, submitted)
Declaration of Interests
Councillor Milligan declared a financial interest in the above item as a member of his family was employed by the firm of solicitors representing some of the parents and left the meeting during the Council’s consideration.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 3 of 3 Minutes Item No 4.2
The City of Edinburgh Council
1.00pm, Thursday 26 June 2014
Present:-
LORD PROVOST
The Right Honourable Donald Wilson
COUNCILLORS
Elaine Aitken Dominic R C Heslop Robert C Aldridge Lesley Hinds Norma Austin Hart Allan G Jackson Nigel Bagshaw Karen Keil Jeremy R Balfour David Key Gavin Barrie Richard Lewis Angela Blacklock Alex Lunn Chas Booth Melanie Main Mike Bridgman Mark McInnes Deidre Brock Adam McVey Steve Burgess Eric Milligan Andrew Burns Joanna Mowat Steve Cardownie Gordon J Munro Maggie Chapman Jim Orr Maureen M Child Lindsay Paterson Bill Cook Ian Perry Nick Cook Alasdair Rankin Cammy Day Vicki Redpath Denis C Dixon Keith Robson Karen Doran Cameron Rose Paul G Edie Jason G Rust Catherine Fullerton Alastair Shields Nick Gardner Stefan Tymkewycz Paul Godzik David Walker Joan Griffiths Iain Whyte Bill Henderson Norman Work Ricky Henderson
1. Motion by Councillor Burgess – Discretionary Housing Payments for Bedroom Tax a) Deputation – Lothian Anti Bedroom Tax Federation
The Deputation urged the Council to adopt a policy that Direct Housing Payments (DHP) be paid to everyone affected by the Bedroom Tax and that this be backdated to 1 April 2013. They felt that the current policy of means testing put up barriers and that many of the people affected found it difficult to complete the necessary forms. They asked that the Council acknowledge that those applying for DHP had already been means tested when applying for Housing Benefit. They stressed that they felt that the money should be automatically paid to those affected. b) Motion by Councillor Burgess
The following motion had been submitted by Councillor Burgess in terms of Standing Order 16.1:
“Council;
Notes that the Scottish Government has undertaken to fully fund Councils for the cost of Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) paid to mitigate the Bedroom Tax (Underoccupancy);
Further notes that the UK Government has agreed to enable the Scottish Government to achieve this undertaking and that therefore, subject to the legal process being completed, there is no budgetary limit for the Council for such payments;
Recognises that whilst there is a delay in the legal process there is continuing concern and confusion amongst tenants some of whom believe that the “Bedroom Tax” has been “abolished” from 1 April 2014 and that many Council and housing association tenants are accumulating rent arrears and many of these have not yet made applications for DHP;
Therefore agrees that the Council’s DHP policy is amended accordingly such that all qualifying Bedroom Tax (Underoccupancy) DHP applications are appropriately backdated and paid in full without the need for a financial assessment, noting that this will greatly streamline the application process for tenants, housing associations and the Council and increase take up of DHP amongst some groups of tenants.”
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 2 of 24 Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Burgess with the following adjustment:
“and call for a report to the next Corporate Policy and Strategy Committee on 5 August 2014 on the backdating of DHP claims to April 2013.”
2. Questions
The question put by members to this meeting, written answers and supplementary questions and answers are contained in Appendix 1 to this minute.
3. Minutes
Decision
To approve the minute of the Council of 29 May 2014.
4. Leader’s Report
The Leader presented his report to the Council. The Leader commented on:
Mortonhall Investigation Local Development Plan Trams launch
The following questions/comments were made:
Councillor Rose - Free Energy – Greendykes and Wauchope Houses - Trams - Speed
Councillor Burgess - Local Development Plan
Councillor Nick Cook - Finance for Liberton High School
Councillor Godzik - Portobello Private Bill
Councillor Shields - Local Development Plan – Preservation of Green Belt in West Edinburgh
Councillor Cardownie - Liberal Democrat Group representation on the Planning Committee - The Queen’s Baton Relay - Jazz and Blues Festival
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 3 of 24
Councillor Barrie - S1 Football Team at Broughton High School - congratulations - Football Academy players playing for school teams
Councillor Whyte - Bicycle Station Scheme - Standing Orders – Changes to Committee meeting dates
Councillor Gardner - Leith Awards – Trishna Singh, Sikh Sanjog and Punjabi Junction Social Enterprise Cafe and Mary Moriarty, Leith Festival and Gala Day
Councillor Paterson - Local Development Plan – West Edinburgh
Councillor Austin-Hart - Liberton High School
Councillor Booth - Edinburgh Heating Schemes – Cables Wynd House
Councillor Tymkewycz - Councillor Burns - Edinburgh Marathon - Sponsors
Councillor Day - Craigroyston Community High School – no- exclusion policy
Councillor Heslop - Mark Turley
Councillor Keil - Craigmount High School – Debating Award
Councillor Edie - Referendum
Councillor Munro - Customs House – Proposed Museum
5. Appointment to the Board of Transport for Edinburgh
The Council had made appointments to the Board of Edinburgh Transport for Edinburgh on 24 October 2013.
The Council was invited to appoint a member to the Board of Transport for Edinburgh following the resignation of Councillor Cardownie.
Decision
To appoint Councillor McVey to the Board of Transport for Edinburgh.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 4 of 24 (References: Act of Council No 10 of 24 October 2013; report by the Acting Director of Services for Communities, submitted).
6. Scotland’s Electoral Future – Proposed Consultation
Details were provided on a current Scottish Government consultation exercise on Scotland’s Electoral Future together with the proposed Council response.
Decision
To approve the response to the Scottish Government Consultation on Scotland’s Electoral Future as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report by the Chief Executive.
(Reference: report by the Chief Executive, submitted).
7. Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions – Development and Disposal of Council Property
The Lord Provost ruled in terms of Standing Order 27(1)(a), that this item, which included an option which, if accepted would require a change to Act of Council No 7 of 29 May 2014, should be accepted due to a material change in circumstances, namely the need to refine the current process, highlighted in recent discussions with the respective Conveners and Vice-Conveners.
Details were provided on a proposal to adjust the Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions so that only Council property disposals and developments which were of strategic importance to the city’s economy would need to be considered by the Economy Committee, with subsequent ratification by the Finance and Resources Committee.
Decision
1) To add a new paragraph A.7 to the Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions (“ TORs”) as follows:
“7. Strategic Property
In these Committee Terms of Reference, “Strategic Property” means Council- owned property that is determined by the Chief Executive or a Director in the relevant committee report, or by the Finance and Resources Committee in considering a committee report, to be of strategic importance to the city’s economy.”
2) To amend paragraph B.4.7 of the TORs as follows:-
“The Committee has the authority to approve the disposal and development of Strategic Property, subject to ratification by the Finance and Resources Committee.”
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 5 of 24 3) To amend paragraph B.6.8 of the TORs as follows:-
“To approve the disposal and development of Council owned property other than Strategic Property”.
4) To add a new paragraph B.6.9 to the TORs as follows:
“6.9 To consider ratification of any recommendation by the Economy Committee to approve the disposal and development of Strategic Property”
5) To authorise the Director of Corporate Governance to take such actions and make such minor adjustments to the Committee Terms of Reference and Delegated Functions as may be necessary in order to implement the decision of Council in relation to this report.
(References: Act of Council No 7 of 29 May 2014; report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)
8. Lothian Pension Funds Annual Report 2014 Unaudited
The unaudited Lothian Pension Funds Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2014 was presented.
Decision
To note the unaudited Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2014 for the Lothian Pension Fund, the Lothian Buses Pension Fund and the Scottish Homes Pension Fund.
(Reference: report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)
9. Unaudited Financial Statements 2013-14
The unaudited financial statements for 2013/14 were submitted for the Council’s consideration.
Motion
1) To note the unaudited financial statements for 2013/14 and that these would be submitted to the Controller of Audit.
2) To note that a detailed report on the outturn would be reported to the Finance and Resources Committee in August 2014.
3) To note that the financial statements would be submitted to the Governance, Risk and Best value Committee in September 2014, at the conclusion of the audit and thereafter to Council in October 2014.
- moved by Councillor Rankin, seconded by Councillor Bill Cook
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 6 of 24 Amendment
To request that Audit Scotland, in their assessment of risk and reporting on the adequacy of the accounts, give particular consideration of the adequacy of the allocated reserve or additional provisions for impairment of debtors over and above that already allocated for Statutory works.
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Balfour
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 33 votes For the amendment - 19 votes
Decision
To approve the motion by Councillor Rankin.
(Reference: report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted)
10. City Strategic Investment Fund Update
The Council had agreed to establish a Strategic Investment Fund as part of its 2013/14 budget.
An update was provided on the development of the planned new City Strategic Investment Fund.
Decision
1) To note that work was continuing on identifying and realising capital assets to resource the new City Strategic Investment Fund.
2) To note that further progress would be reported once such value was realised and available for investment in the fund.
(References - Act of Council No 12 of 22 August 2013; report by the Director of Economic Development, submitted)
11. Resource Opportunities Team – referral from the Finance and Resources Committee
The Finance and Resources Committee had referred a report on a new “Whole Council” resource opportunities team for approval to use the ‘Spend to Save’ fund for this purpose.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 7 of 24 Decision
To approve the use of £100,000 of ‘Spend to Save’ fund for the establishment of a new Council resources opportunities team.
(References: Finance and Resources Committee 7 May 2014 (item 8); referral report by the Finance and Resources Committee, submitted)
12. Liberton High School
The Lord Provost ruled that the following item, notice of which had been given at the start of the meeting, be considered as a matter of urgency in order that it be considered timeously.
Details were provided on the outcome of consultation which had taken place with the Liberton High School community following the tragic death of Keane Wallis-Bennett at the school on 1 April 2014. There had been a clear and overwhelming desire for the permanent removal and demolition of the existing gym block and it was therefore proposed that this demolition work begin at the earliest opportunity.
Decision
1) To approve the demolition of the existing gym hall at Liberton High School and the provision of a temporary dance studio at a cost of approximately £150,000 to be met from the monies set aside to address the resultant issues from the tragedy.
2) To agree that the PE facilities which would be removed as a consequence of the demolition of the existing gym hall would be replaced with details of the costs and sources of funding to be reported to Council on 21 August 2014. That report would also consider the provision of an appropriate memorial at the school.
(Reference: report by the Director of Children and Families, submitted)
13. Minimum/Living Wage – Motion by Councillor Corbett
The following motion by Councillor Corbett was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:
“Council:
Notes with disappointment that an Edinburgh private school Cargilfield School Ltd has been named by the UK Government as failing to meet its legal requirement to pay minimum wage, underpaying one worker by £3,739.58, putting it top of the list of Scottish breaches.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 8 of 24 Reaffirms the Council’s commitment to encouraging all employers to pay not less than a Living Wage, with the aim of Edinburgh moving from being a Living Wage Council to being a Living Wage City.”
Motion
To approve the motion by Councillor Corbett.
- moved by Councillor Chapman, seconded by Councillor Burgess
Amendment
“Council:
Notes with disappointment that an Edinburgh private school Cargilfield School Ltd has been named by the UK Government as failing to meet its legal requirement to pay minimum wage, underpaying one worker by £3,739.58, putting it top of the list of Scottish breaches.
Congratulates the UK Government for introducing new rules that ‘name and shame’ employers who break the law by failing to pay the minimum wage. Further welcomes UK Government proposals in the Queen’s Speech to implement fines of up to £20,000 for employers who break the minimum wage law and notes the Chancellor’s decision to increase the national minimum wage to £6.50 per hour from October.
Accepts that encouraging Edinburgh employers to pay not less than the Living Wage is a worthy aspiration but notes that this may not be possible, especially in the short term, for some small businesses or third sector employers. Therefore, considers that moves to strengthen the implementation of the national minimum wage remain a key component in protecting the rights of low paid workers.”
- moved by Councillor Whyte, seconded by Councillor Paterson
Voting
The voting was as follows:
For the motion - 42 votes For the amendment - - 11 votes
Decision
To approve the motion in Councillor Corbett’s name.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 9 of 24 14. Tram Inquiry – Lifting of Compromise Agreement Restrictions – Motion by Councillor Rose
The following motion by Councillor Rose was submitted in terms of Standing Order 16:
“Council
1) Notes the appointment by the Scottish Government of Lord Hardie to
a) enquire into the delivery of the Edinburgh Trams project “the project”, from proposals for the project emerging to its completion, including the procurement and contract preparation, its governance, project management and delivery structures, and oversight of the relevant contracts, in order to establish why the project incurred delays, cost considerably more than originally budgeted for and delivered significantly less than was projected through reductions in scope.
b) To examine the consequences of the failure to deliver the project in the time, within the budget and to the extent projected.
c) To otherwise review the circumstances surrounding the project as necessary, in order to report to the Scottish Ministers making recommendations as to how major tram and light rail infrastructure projects of a similar nature might avoid such failures in future.
2) Notes the importance of having full information available to the inquiry.
3) Notes that a number of employees have left Edinburgh Council during the last seven years where a compromise agreement (or similar contract) has been agreed.
4) Notes that such an agreement typically may include an undertaking to keep confidential, not disclose, discuss or publish, or permit to be published, any information, in any way associated with the project, including the circumstances of the departure or, as the case may be, the fact of such an agreement.
5) Resolves that, in order to assist the enquiry, Council contact each former employee, who has been in any way associated with the project, and whose departure has been associated with such a compromise or similar agreement, to enable each such person, should that person choose to do so, fully and freely to give evidence and provide any material or information to the enquiry not withstanding undertakings given in any such agreement.
Councillor Rose submitted the following adjusted motion:
“Council
1) Notes the appointment by the Scottish Government of Lord Hardie to
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 10 of 24 a) enquire into the delivery of the Edinburgh Trams project “the project”, from proposals for the project emerging to its completion, including the procurement and contract preparation, its governance, project management and delivery structures, and oversight of the relevant contracts, in order to establish why the project incurred delays, cost considerably more than originally budgeted for and delivered significantly less than was projected through reductions in scope.
b) to examine the consequences of the failure to deliver the project in the time, within the budget and to the extent projected.
c) to otherwise review the circumstances surrounding the project as necessary, in order to report to the Scottish Ministers making recommendations as to how major tram and light rail infrastructure projects of a similar nature might avoid such failures in future.
2) Notes the importance of having full information available to the inquiry.
3) Resolves that, in order to assist the inquiry, where any former employee, who has been in any way associated with the project, and whose departure has been associated with a compromise or similar agreement containing a confidentiality undertaking, the Council will not rely on and will waive any such undertaking to the extent necessary to enable each such person, should they choose to do so, fully and freely to give evidence and provide any material or information to the inquiry not withstanding undertakings given in any such agreement.
4) To instruct the Chief Executive to convey the Council’s position to Lord Hardie.
Decision
To approve the adjusted motion by Councillor Rose.
15. Sir William Y Darling Bequest for Good Citizenship
The Council, in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, excluded the public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business for the reason that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 7(A) of the Act.
Details were given of nominations for the Sir William Y Darling Award for Good Citizenship for the municipal year 2013/2014.
Decision
To make the Sir William Y Darling Award for Good Citizenship for the municipal year 2013/2014 to Lynne McNicoll.
(Reference – report by the Director of Corporate Governance, submitted.)
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 11 of 24
Appendix 1 (As referred to in Act of Council No 3 of 26 June 2014)
QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Rust for answer by the Convener of the Economy Committee at a meeting of the Council on 26 June 2014
Question (1) In respect of the 42 international trips undertaken by the economic development service during the period from February 2012 to February 2014 please list (a) the locations, (b) name of event, (c) number of officials and (d) number of councillors in attendance?
Answer (1) Please see attached appendix.
Question (2) What is the total costs of those trips?
Answer (2) Costs for travel and accommodation total £51,135.17. The costs for subsistence were minor.
Question (3) How many procurement cards are held by Economic Development?
Answer (3) Currently there are 13 cards.
Question (4) What is the total spend on those cards for years 2012/13 and 2013/14?
Answer (4) The total for 2012 is £9,744.84. The total for 2013 is £22,079.86.
Question (5) What criteria is used when selecting accommodation, such as the Platinum Five-Star “The Garden Hotel” in Guangzhou or Hilton Doha Hotel?
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 12 of 24 Answer (5) The Garden Hotel was selected as it is one of the cheapest hotels with which the British Consulate in Guangzhou has a corporate rate arrangement. The B&B per night rate was RMB700.00, which is around £70. Also, it was within walking distance of the Consulate. The Hilton Doha was selected on a similar basis with the British Consulate office in Doha.
Question (6) Why did the response to the Economy Committee e- mailed on 25 April to the further information I sought at Committee on 6 March in respect of the Property Conference in London last November refer to £333 in respect of “travel and accommodation” yet omit £953 spent at Latium, Italian Restaurant?
Answer (6) The Latium was booked for an investor event and was not part of the travel or accommodation relating to the London visit.
Supplementary I am not aware of the Convener being in the room so Question I should maybe take the further questions up with him in detail. I have one general point, I don’t know if the Vice-Convener would be able to answer. It was just really in relation to the answer to Question 4 – there’s obviously been a doubling in the spend in the procurement card or more than doubling from 2012/13 and 2013/14 and I just wondered if he was able to provide any clarity on that.
Supplementary In the absence of the Convener, I can say that clarity Answer was provided in the report that was considered by the Economy Committee on Tuesday at which Councillor Rust was not present, in which the programme for the entire year was actually outlined and will be subject to further Committee reports and approval and I would also give an undertaking on the Convener’s behalf that officers are more than willing to supply answers to questions that he has further to this.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 13 of 24 Appendix
Location Name of Event Officials Councillors
Dubai / Doha / Investment promotion 2 none Abu Dhabi campaign February 2012
Cannes MIPIM investment fair 3 1 March 2012
Lille EU funded Interreg Open 2 none April 2012 Innovation project
Dublin EU funded Interreg Open 2 none July 2012 Innovation project
Abu Dhabi / Edinburgh and Abu Dhabi 1 1 plus City Officer Qatar Science Festival Sept 2012 collaboration
Kassel EU funded Interreg Open 2 none Sept 2012 Innovation project
Dublin EU funded Interreg Open 2 none October 2012 Innovation project
Munich ExpoReal investment fair 3 none October 2012
Nantes Eurocities AGM and 1 1 Nov 2012 Conference
Lille EU funded Interreg Open 3 none Dec 2012 Innovation project
Dubai Arab Health week – life 1 none Jan 2013 sciences investment
Dublin EU funded Interreg Open 4 none Feb 2013 Innovation project
Cannes MIPIM investment fair 3 none March 2013
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 14 of 24
Location Name of Event Officials Councillors
Rouen / Ghent EU funded Interreg Open 2 none March 2013 Innovation project
Toronto Creative Industries 1 none March 2013 Mission
Munich EU Leonardo placement 1 none March 2013
Rotterdam / Eurocities Social Affairs 1 none Amsterdam Forum Health & March 2013 Employment Conference - speaker
Ghent EU funded Interreg Open 1 none April 2013 Innovation project
Beijing, Tianjin, China investment 1 none Shenzhen, Xi’an promotion and to set up April 2013 MOU with Shenzhen
Istanbul Trade mission using new 1 none May 2013 direct flight
Espoo Eurocities Cooperation 1 none May 2013 Platform
Brussels Scotland Europa course 1 none May 2013
Qatar University research 1 none June 2013 delegation
Beijing / Sign MOU with Shenzhen 1 1 plus City Officer Shenzhen on incubator space June 2013
Munich EU Leonardo Placement 1 none Sept 2013
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 15 of 24
Location Name of Event Officials Councillors
Munich Sept EU Leonardo Placement 1 none 2013
Laval EU funded Interreg Open 1 none Oct 2013 Innovation project
Beijing UNESCO Creative Cities 1 1 plus City Officer October 2013 Summit – City of Literature
Munich October EU Leonardo Placement 1 none 2013
Munich EU Leonardo Placement 1 none October 2013
Munich ExpoReal investment fair 4 none October 2013
Rouen EU funded Interreg Open 3 none October 2013 Innovation project
Lille EU funded Interreg Open 2 none Nov 2013 Innovation project
Ghent Eurocities AGM and 1 1 Nov 2013 Conference
Malmo Youth Employment 1 none Nov 2013 Conference - speaker
Cannes MAPIC Retail Investment 1 none Nov 2013 Fair
Qatar Support for University 1 none Nov 2013 recruitment fair
Berlin Urban Land Institute 1 none Nov 2013 conference speaker
Brussels EU Smart City funding 1 none Dec 2013 programme
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 16 of 24
Location Name of Event Officials Councillors
Krakow Prepare new Cooperation 1 none Feb 2013 Agreement
Amsterdam Assess Werkcenter 2 none Feb 2013 programme for trainees
Toronto FT International Financial 3 none Feb 2013 Centres and Canada investment campaign
Ghent EU funded Interreg Open 4 none Feb 2014 Innovation project
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 17 of 24
QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Rust for answer by the Convener of the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee at a meeting of the Council on 26 June 2014
Question (1) What is the total cost incurred by the City of Edinburgh Housing Account in respect of the non-billing for the communal heating system at Greendykes House and Wauchope House in years (a) 2012/13, (b) 2013/14 and (c) 2014/15 to date?
Answer (1) Between March 2012 and April 2013 the cost of energy supplied to the energy centre was £2,260.
Between April 2013 and March 2014 the cost of energy supplied to the energy centre was £91,422.
These costs will be covered in the overall project costs.
Figures for 2014/15 are not available.
Question (2) Please provide a detailed breakdown of the £700,000 additional costs agreed with the contractor in November 2012.
Answer (2) On 28 January 2014 the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee received an update report on the progress towards implementing the retrofitted district heating system in Greendykes and Wauchope. This report advised that in November 2012 additional works not previously included in the contract were identified in relation to the construction of the energy centre and the completion of heating services.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 18 of 24 These costs were:
• Change of design details of the roof and additional excavation work to the surrounding area amounting to £118,500.
• Additional pipework which had not been included in the agreed bill of quantities amounting to £290,000.
Additional joiner work for the installation of heating systems to individual properties amounting to £291,500.
Question (3) Who agreed those additional costs?
Answer (3) The costs were reviewed and agreed by the project team. The contract allowed for these additional costs as the contract awarded was an approximate works contract. This allowed for larger works where design issues were expected to be identified during the course of the project.
Question (4) What additional costs have been agreed with the contractor since that agreement of November 2012 and when were these agreed?
Answer (4) None.
Question (5) What is the amount of any outstanding claim by the contractor and what is this in relation to?
Answer (5) Additional costs claimed by the contractor are subject to internal review and negotiation with the contractor. Following the completion of these negotiations final costs will be reported to the Health, Social Care and Housing Committee in September 2014.
Question (6) The McDermott Group Limited state on-line: “Our Group company (Easy Heat Systems Ltd) has recently delivered a £ 4 million District Heating Scheme for The City of Edinburgh Council at Greendkes (sic) & Wauchope, Niddrie, Edinburgh during May 2013” (http://www.b2match.eu/district-heating-sweden- scotland/participants/33
(a) what does this £4 million figure refer to?
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 19 of 24 (b) why is this figure not referred to in any Council report?
(c) has there been any discussion with The McDermott Group Ltd or Easy Heat Systems Ltd regarding this testimonial?
Answer (6) (a) what does this £4 million figure refer to?
This figure was publicised by the contractor. The Council has not concluded its negotiation with the contractor.
(b) why is this figure not referred to in any Council report?
This figure is solely the contractor’s responsibility.
(c) has there been any discussion with The McDermott Group Ltd or Easy Heat Systems Ltd regarding this testimonial?
Officers have advised the McDermott Group that this figure does not reflect the Council’s position on agreed costs.
Question (7) In January 2014 it was reported that there were 3 households not connected to the system. How many are not connected in June 2014?
Answer (7) Two of the three have been connected. One resident continues to refuse to have their property connected.
Question (8) How many complaints have been received by the Council from residents in Greendykes House and Wauchope House during the past two years?
Answer (8) There have been 88 repair requests to 61 homes since June 2013 relating to the heating system.
Question (9) Who in City of Edinburgh Council is responsible for delivery of a fully commissed heating system to Greendykes House and Wauchope House?
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 20 of 24 Answer (9) The Acting Head of Housing and Regeneration is responsible for the delivery of a fully commissioned heating system. The commissioning process involves ensuring that residents can properly control the new heating system, that energy monitoring equipment is operating properly and that the transfer of heat to individual properties is working properly.
Question (10) Given it was stated by the Administration to the media in January 2014 the “plan to have it fully commissioned between April and June 2014”, by what date will the current system to both Houses be fully operational with invoicing and all ancillary matters resolved?
Answer (10) The commissioning of the system is subject to further review in June 2014.
Officers are continuing to seek access to six properties which are still to be checked following the suspected identification of faults.
During May, there were two incidents of power failure in the Energy Centre which led to a disruption to the supply of heating and hot water to residents. Although these issues were quickly resolved, the cause of these supply failures is still under investigation and work is ongoing to put in measures to reduce the risk of interruptions to the energy supply.
Consultation with tenants showed a preference for applying a standing charge to rent accounts to pay for the heating.
It is anticipated that, subject to satisfactory completion of the commissioning process, residents will be liable for heating costs from the beginning of July 2014.
Supplementary It’s obviously quite a scandalous situation here and we Question don’t have the full facts yet and I do appreciate that this is coming back to Committee in September, but given there was a commitment at the last Health, Social Care and Housing Committee meeting for a briefing note to all elected members to be circulated, I do wonder whether in light of the possible developments in answer 10, in terms of June and July 2014 that this briefing note might be circulated with
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 21 of 24 further details in advance of September so that we don’t have to wait until then for more answers.
Supplementary The briefing will be with members by close of play today Answer and charging will be effective from 1 July 2014.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 22 of 24
QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Mowat for answer by the Convener of the Transport and Environment Committee at a meeting of the Council on 26 June 2014
Question Can the Leader tell Council when the decision to reduce the residual waste capacity from a 240l bin to a 140l bin went through a Committee for a decision on the principle of reducing residual waste capacity by 40%; given that a 50% reduction in capacity was introduced in 2013; is the Leader aware that approving the tender for an additional 240l bin would have met the budgeted cost as agreed by the Transport and Environment Committee in the Outline Business case for Kerbside Recycling Review agreed on 27th August 2013?
Answer Reducing landfill capacity in order to incentivise greater recycling is part of our waste and recycling strategy which was approved by Transport Infrastructure and Environment Committee on 23 November 2010.
On 27 August 2013, the Transport & Environment Committee approved the Business Case for the Council’s redesigned recycling services for low density housing in the city. Approval was also given, on that date, to commence procurement of bins, vehicles and processing capacity.
All Political Groups within the Council were recently briefed on the various options, in relation to the size of landfill bins, to be procured under the new system.
Subsequently the Finance & Resources Committee, on 5 June 2014, approved the purchase of 140,000 140litre bins.
It is important to recognise that the overall capacity for waste and recycling for households will actually increase by 12% per week with the inception of the new service.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 23 of 24 The amount of waste that will need to be disposed of in the residual bin will also decrease due to expansion of the types of materials that can be recycled.
It is recognised that the award of a contract for the standard (240 litre) bins would have met the original budgeted cost contained within the business case presented in August 2013. However, the procurement of the bins is to be funded via prudential borrowing and consequently paid off from revenue budgets. The opportunity to realise additional savings on the initial budgeted figure for the bins (and therefore reduce the annual payment over the term) by procuring a smaller bin and the associated significant savings in avoided landfill disposal costs, was a key consideration given the financial challenges faced by the Council.
Supplementary I am aware of the progress that this has taken through Question the various Committees. I would just like the Convener to confirm that the charge for smaller bins for residual waste was not specifically agreed by any Committee of the Council.
Supplementary That’s not the case. Finance and Resources Committee Answer made that decision in regard to the procurement and also the Council and Transport and Environment Committee agreed a business case, which on the premise of the business case is to ensure that we increase our recycling and reduce our costs in terms of landfill and that is exactly what we are achieving.
.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 26 June 2014 Page 24 of 24 Item no 5.1
QUESTION NO 1 By Councillor Heslop for answer by the Convener of the Regulatory Committee at a meeting of the Council on 21 August 2014
Question 1 To ask the Convener what established short notice procedures were followed in relation to the granting of a parades and processions licence for the demonstration which took place on Princes Street on 9 August 2014.
Question 2 To ask the Convener who decides what is a ‘controversial’ march which may cause public disruption.
Question 3 To ask the Convener whether it is appropriate to allow marches, out with the 28 day notification period, to take place, particularly during August and having regard to the impact such marches have on transport, pedestrian access and local businesses affected by these demonstrations.
Question 4 To ask the Convener how many police officers were assigned to the march on 9 August on Princes Street and whether officers were diverted from the Grand Black Chapter March to police this event.
Item no 5.2
QUESTION NO 2 By Councillor Rust for answer by the Convener of the Finance and Resources Committee at a meeting of the Council on 21 August 2014
Question 1 Please advise (a) the square footage occupied by each political group in the City Chambers, and (b) the notional cost charged per group
Question 2 What discussions have taken place between Council officers and representatives of EDI regarding use of office space in the City Chambers by EDI?
Item no 5.3
QUESTION NO 3 By Councillor Rust for answer by the Convener of the Education, Children and Families Committee at a meeting of the Council on 21 August 2014
Question 1 Why was confidential information inside the school not properly secured prior to the end of term?
Question 2` What is the status of the investigation?
Question 3 When was the Care Inspectorate advised of the facts?
August 2014
Games set gold standard
Having personally sampled the fantastic atmosphere and organisation of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, I can only echo the praise heaped upon the organisers – and with a record haul of 53 medals, TeamScotland did the country equally proud.
Edinburgh, of course, also played its part. Thousands took to the streets to welcome the Queen’s Baton Relay back in June, setting the tone for an unforgettable three days of diving competitions in the ‘Commie Pool’, including career best performances from local divers Grace Reid and James Heatly.
All in all, around 80 Edinburgh born, based or trained athletes took part in the Games, bringing home 15 medals, and the Council is planning to recognise their achievements with a public celebration later this month. ______
Exams success
And speaking of success, congratulations to Edinburgh’s school pupils on gaining excellent exam results yet again this year. The number of S6 and S5 pupils (61% and 54% respectively) who achieved one or more Highers improved on last year and over 23,000 awards were given out for the new National exams.
It’s been a challenge for pupils and our teaching staff to prepare for these new exams but I think the results speak for themselves. Last week’s figures also reinforce recently published statistics from Audit Scotland that Edinburgh is outperforming similar city and neighbouring authorities when it comes to S4 results.
In addition to exams, another key aim of the Capital Coalition is to make sure all school leavers enter a positive destination of employment, training or further education through initiatives such as the Edinburgh Guarantee – and this year a record 91% of young people achieved this. ______
Greener Edinburgh
Another priority for the Council is to make Edinburgh a greener city, and next month we’ll be making it easier for residents who use our wheelie bin service to recycle. This new service will help us meet our target of recycling 70% of our waste.
The range of things residents can recycle will increase, resulting in less waste being sent to landfill – allowing us to reduce both our carbon footprint and the amount of landfill tax we pay.
The service will be rolled out in phases to 140,000 households over the next year with the first 20,000 starting in September. If you’re in Phase 1, you will shortly receive information in the post, including a new collection calendar. You can find out more by visiting the Council website. ______
Tram latest
This month, Edinburgh welcomes the world, with hundreds of thousands of people thronging the City to enjoy the festivals. And for the first time since 1956, Festival-goers can again travel in the Capital by tram.
Trams continue to attract an average of over 90,000 passengers per week. We’re very pleased with this consistent performance, which is in line with the business model, but we will continue to work closely with Transport for Edinburgh to ensure that any issues are picked up on and resolved swiftly.
Two Celtic European Games at the BT Murrayfield Stadium went well, with thousands using the trams to get to and from the games. These events certainly put the Edinburgh Trams team to the test but I’m pleased to say they coped admirably with the large crowds. ______
EdinburghApps
Next month, EdinburghApps will once again challenge residents to come up with high-tech solutions to help improve the lives of people visiting, living and working in Edinburgh.
The first of its kind in the UK, the competition lets teams and individuals use Council data to create ideas and concepts for the benefit of the city. In its first year, it attracted a range of innovative entries, including an app to help Council lorries operate more efficiently and another helping residents locate their nearest recycling point.
This year’s event has two themes: Culture & Sport and Health. If you are interested in taking part, please visit the EdinburghApps website or email [email protected].
Don’t lose your vote
This week, more than 350,000 registered voters in Edinburgh (over 4m across Scotland) will begin to receive poll cards for the Scottish Independence Referendum, providing them with details on how and where they can vote on 18 September.
This is set to be the biggest poll in Scotland’s history with a turnout of more than 80% predicted. But only people who are registered to vote, and are aged 16 or over on the 18 September, are able to take part. That’s why it’s essential that you register by 2 September.
I would urge all those who want to take part in this historic vote to check their details are on the register by visiting Lothian Valuation Joint Board’s website or calling 0131 344 2500. ______
Stay in the picture
Keep yourself in the picture with our news section online. If you wish to unsubscribe please email us. Watch live full Council and some committee meetings on our webcast. Join the debate on Twitter #edinwebcast
Follow us on twitter Watch on our webcast Follow us on Facebook
The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Appointment to the Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy
Item number Report number Executive Wards None
Executive summary
The Council is represented on the Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy which works to increase community engagement and participation in sport. In May 2012, the Council appointed Councillors Redpath and Cardownie to the Board. Councillor Redpath has now resigned and the Council is asked to appoint a replacement.
Links
Coalition pledges P43 Council outcomes CO4, CO10, CO20, CO23 Single Outcome Agreement SO2, SO3
Report
Appointment to the Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy
Recommendations
1.1 It is recommended that the Council appoint a replacement for Councillor Vicki Redpath on the Board of The Spartans Community Football Academy.
Background
2.1 On 24 May 2012, the Council appointed Councillors Redpath and Cardownie to the Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy. Councillor Redpath has now resigned from the Board and the Council is asked to appoint a replacement. Main report
3.1 The Spartans Community Football Academy works to increase community engagement and participation in sport. 3.2 Its aims are to: 3.2.1 provide new opportunities for more people to participate in sport and recreational activities; 3.2.2 provide learning and development opportunities; 3.2.3 have a positive impact on social targets such as health improvement, increased employment opportunities and crime reduction; and 3.2.4 help strengthen community cohesion by becoming a focal point for a range of community based activities and programmes. 3.3 Working in partnership with various local organisations, community programmes currently delivered by the Academy include: 3.3.1 Street Football in a Safe Place 3.3.2 Friday FooTEA club 3.3.3 Street Fit-Baw Programme 3.3.4 School Visit Programme 3.3.5 Street Football in a Safe Playground 3.3.6 Making Magic Memories
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2
3.3.7 Spartan’s Smilers 3.3.8 Homework Clubs 3.3.9 Academy Ambassadors Programme 3.4 At its meeting on 24 May 2012 the Council appointed Councillors Redpath and Cardownie to the Board of the Spartans Community Football Academy. Councillor Redpath has tendered her resignation from this Board with effect from 20 June 2014.
Measures of success
4.1 Appointment of an elected member to the Board of Spartans Community Football Academy.
Financial impact
5.1 Not applicable.
Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 Not applicable.
Equalities impact
7.1 Not applicable.
Sustainability impact
8.1 Not applicable.
Consultation and engagement
9.1 Not applicable.
Background reading/external references
None.
Alastair D Maclean Director of Corporate Governance Contact: Stephanie-Anne Harris E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 7911 City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3
Links
Coalition pledges P43 - Invest in healthy living and fitness advice for those most in need Council outcomes CO4 - Our children and young people are physically and emotionally healthy CO10 - Improved health and reduced inequalities CO20 - Culture, sport and major events – Edinburgh continues to be a leading cultural city where culture and sport play a central part in the lives and futures of citizens CO23 - Well engaged and well informed – Communities and individuals are empowered and supported to improve local outcomes and foster a sense of community Single Outcome SO2 - Edinburgh’s citizens experience improved health and Agreement well-being, with reduced inequalities in health SO3 - Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their childhood and fulfil their potential Appendices n/a
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4
The City of Edinburgh Council
10:00 am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Appointment to Management Committee – Community One Stop Shop, Broomhouse, Edinburgh
Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards 7 – Sighthill / Gorgie
Executive summary
The purpose of this report is to ask Council to appoint a member to the Community One Stop Shop (COSS) Committee. The roles and responsibilities associated with becoming a COSS committee member are detailed in Appendix A.
Links
Coalition pledges None Council outcomes CO6, CO9, CO11 and CO14 Single Outcome Agreement None
Report
Appointment to Management Committee – Community One Stop Shop, Broomhouse, Edinburgh
Recommendations
1.1 It is recommended that the Council appoint one member to become a committee member on the COSS committee. Background
2.1 The COSS is an independent, free and confidential advice and information service. It has been in operation in the Broomhouse area for over 10 years. It works with members of the community, such as young people not in education, employment or training, families on low income, minority ethnic groups and the elderly. 2.2 The COSS offers much needed advice and support in relation to welfare benefits, housing issues, form filling, consumer problems, education and employment and debt management. Main report
3.1 The COSS committee consists of up to 10 members. The committee members at COSS take on an advisory role for all the activities of the organisation. They maintain an overview of policy and strategic direction, rather than being involved in the day-to-day operations. 3.2 The term of office for committee members is one year. The role generally requires a commitment of four meetings per year, cheque signatory responsibilities and contact via email and phone, as required. All members of the committee will resign on an annual basis, but are eligible for re-election. 3.3 The roles and responsibilities associated with becoming a COSS committee member are detailed in Appendix A. Measures of success
4.1 Not applicable. Financial impact
5.1 Not applicable. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 Not applicable.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2 Equalities impact
7.1 Not applicable.
Sustainability impact
8.1 Not applicable. Consultation and engagement
9.1 Not applicable. Background reading/external references
Community one stop shop website
John Bury Acting Director of Services for Communities Contact: Mike Avery, South West Neighbourhood Manager E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 527 3801
Links
Coalition pledges None Council outcomes CO6: Our children’s and young people’s outcomes are not undermined by poverty and inequality. CO9: Edinburgh residents are able to access job opportunities. CO11: Preventative and personalised support in place. CO14: Communities have capacity to help support people.
Single Outcome None Agreement Appendices Appendix A – Role description and person specification.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3 Appendix A – Role description and person specification Community One Stop Shop Committee Members
Role description & person specification The committee members at COSS are supported by the management committee and take on an advisory role for all the activities of the organisation. They maintain an overview of policy and strategic direction rather than being involved in day-to-day operations. The role of the committee member is summarised below.
Vision and Leadership To be committed to the vision, mission and values of the Community One Stop Shop. To provide strategic direction, including agreeing and monitoring strategic plans. To keep informed of the activities of the organisation and the wider issues that affect its work. To ensure the work of the organisation is monitored and evaluated.
Accountability & Legal Responsibilities To ensure the organisation complies with its governing document. The Community One Stop Shop has a constitution. To ensure the organisation keeps to the law, including charity OSCR requirements. To ensure the organisation makes efficient use of resources, in particular that all monies are applied to its objects, agreed plans and budgets. To ensure that risks to the organisation, staff, volunteers and service users are at an acceptable level and are effectively managed. To be accountable to membership, funders and other stakeholders.
Financial & Staff Management To understand the financial position of the organisation. To ensure the organisation's finances are properly managed. To ensure the organisation operates within its agreed accounting policies. To ensure adequate financial resources for the organisation. To contribute to fundraising strategies. To ensure the organisation is properly insured against all reasonable liabilities. To ensure the organisation is a responsible employer and adheres to legislation. The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4 To effectively support and manage the project manager.
Requirements and skills of committee members Good leadership skills. Understanding of and commitment to the organisation’s mission & values. Good communication and interpersonal skills. Impartiality and fairness. Ability to respect confidences. Reliability
Time Commitment Required The term of office for committee members for the Community One Stop Shop is 1 year. The role generally requires a commitment of 4 meetings per year, cheque signatory requirements and contact via email and phone when and if required.
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 5 The City of Edinburgh Council
10am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Liberton High School
Item number Report number Executive/routine Executive Wards Liberton/Gilmerton
Executive summary
Following the tragic death of Keane Wallis-Bennett at Liberton High School on 1 April 2014 the Council has committed to working closely with staff and parents via the Parent Council to support the school community. Following consultation with the school community, on 26 June 2014 Council approved the permanent removal and demolition of the existing gym block and the provision of replacement PE facilities through extending the separate building within which the other PE facilities at the school are currently already provided. The purpose of this report is to provide details of, and seek approval for, the costs and sources of funding for the replacement PE facilities.
Links
Coalition pledges P03 Council outcomes C01 and C02 Single Outcome Agreement S03
Report
Liberton High School
Recommendations
1.1 Approve a gross capital expenditure estimate of up to £2.5m to provide replacement Physical Education (PE) facilities at Liberton High School. 1.2 Welcome the significant funding contribution of two-thirds of the gross capital expenditure up to a maximum contribution of £1,666,667 which the Scottish Government has offered towards the cost of providing the replacement PE facilities. 1.3 Approve that the balance of the estimated funding required to provide the replacement PE facilities of up to £833,333 be met from the additional General Capital Grant identified for 2015/16.
Background
2.1 Following the tragic death of Keane Wallis-Bennett at Liberton High School on 1 April 2014 the Council has committed to working closely with staff and parents via the Parent Council to support the school community. 2.2 A series of meetings have been held with the school community to discuss and agree an appropriate response to the tragic incident. These meetings are continuing. 2.3 One of the matters which required early consideration was the future of the existing gym hall. The overwhelming view from the staff, parents and local community was that this should be demolished as soon as possible and appropriate replacement facilities provided. 2.4 At its meeting on 26 June 2014 Council approved the demolition of the existing gym hall at Liberton High School and the provision of a temporary dance studio at a cost of approximately £150,000 to be met from the monies set aside to address the resultant issues from the tragedy. Council also approved that the PE facilities which would be removed as a consequence of the demolition of the existing gym hall would be replaced with details of the costs and sources of funding to be reported to Council on 21 August 2014. 2.5 The purpose of this report is to provide details of, and seek approval for, the costs and sources of funding for the replacement PE facilities.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2
Main report
3.1 The existing gym hall is an extension to the main school building. It had been the intention to demolish this extension during the recent summer break however, as the investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy is still continuing, the demolition work has not yet been progressed. We intend to move forward with this as soon as the ongoing investigations are completed. 3.2 The demolition will remove part of the school’s sports facilities which will require temporary measures to be put in place until a permanent solution is provided. One of the temporary measures is the alteration of an existing class room into a dance studio which was completed during the summer break and is now available for use by the school. 3.3 The majority of the other existing PE facilities at Liberton High School are already provided in a separate building. The opportunity was identified to extend that building to allow all school PE facilities to be provided within the same building and ensure that the overall provision reflects the latest requirements for a school of its size. 3.4 Prior to the summer break, indicative designs were produced to illustrate how this might be achieved which were shared with, and were well received by, the school community. The indicative designs also showed how further expansion of the PE facilities could be achieved if the capacity of the school was required to increase in the future. 3.5 Detailed design work regarding the replacement PE facilities has now been progressed to concept design stage by the Council’s internal design team. This stage of outline design development determines the general approach to layout, design and construction to ensure that the intended project is feasible from a functional and technical perspective. It also involves a cost estimate being produced to determine financial feasibility. 3.6 The outline design proposals for the extended PE building are included at Appendix 1. The proposal is to place the new gymnasium/dance studio on the north east end of the existing games hall. The intention is to treat this element with more delicate roof detailing and introduce glazed elements with more attractive cladding materials, in order to create more of a focal point at the main approach to the school. The proposed changing areas, classroom and fitness studio have been placed to the rear of the building and are to be finished with mainly plain rendered exterior walls. This part is linked to the existing building by a flat roof above the new corridor. Here light can be brought into the building by clerestory windows and roof-lights. The south wall of the fitness studio is proposed as glass which opens out to a proposed small garden area.
3.7 The concept design proposals to deliver the replacement gym facilities have been reviewed by external cost consultants and are estimated to cost
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3
approximately £2.5m which is in line with the estimate provided to Council in June. 3.8 The report to Council on 26 June 2014 advised that an appropriate memorial at the school is still to be considered and that is a matter which obviously requires further discussion with the school community. The idea of a memorial garden has previously been discussed with the Working Group and a suggested location is shown in the outline design proposals and an indicative cost provision for delivering this has been included within the budget. 3.9 It is proposed that the project now be progressed to implementation with the next stage being further detailed design development to allow a planning application to be submitted. The indicative timescales to complete the replacement facilities are as follows:
Submission of planning application by 30 September 2014 Planning permission secured by 31 December 2014 Contract tendered and contract award approved by mid June 2015 Construction completion by 31 May 2016
Measures of success
4.1 Delivery of the replacement PE at Liberton High School facilities on time, within budget and to the necessary quality.
Financial impact
5.1 The indicative costs of delivering the replacement facilities have been estimated to be approximately £2.5m as shown in Appendix 2. 5.2 The Scottish Government has confirmed it will make a significant financial contribution towards these costs based on 2/3rd’s of the final cost up to a maximum contribution of £1,666,667 i.e. based on a maximum total cost of £2.5m. The Council is very appreciative of the support which the Scottish Government has offered in this regard. 5.3 Based on a total projected cost of £2.5m and a contribution from the Scottish Government of £1,666,667, a balance of £833,333 remains which will require to be funded by the Council. In the event that the final cost is less than £2.5m, the Scottish Government contribution will reduce pro rata. 5.4 As highlighted to members in the 2015/18 revenue and capital budget update report presented to Finance and Resources Committee on 7 May 2014 the provisional Scottish Government settlement indicates the level of General Capital Grant for 2015/16 to be approximately £7.5m higher than the estimate factored into the approved 2014/19 Capital Investment Programme. It is
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4
proposed that the balance of funding required for this project of £833,333 be met from the General Capital Grant for 2015/16. 5.5 This report identifies that the total capital funding necessary to provide the replacement PE facilities at Liberton High School is estimated to be £2.5m. The Scottish Government has confirmed it will provide a contribution of £1,666,667 towards these costs leaving a balance of £833,333 to be funded by the Council. If this net expenditure were to be funded fully by borrowing, the overall loan charges associated with this expenditure over a 20 year period would be a principal amount of £833,333 and interest of £555,547, resulting in a total cost of £1,388,880 based on a loans fund interest rate of 5.1%. The annual loan charges would be £69,444. 5.6 It should be noted that the Council’s Capital Investment Programme is funded through a combination of General Capital Grant from the Scottish Government, developers and third party contributions, capital receipts and borrowing. The borrowing required is carried out in line with the Council’s approved Treasury Management Strategy and is provided for on an overall programme basis rather than for individual capital projects. The loan charge estimates above are based on the assumption of borrowing in full for this capital project.
Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 There are no risk, policy, compliance or governance issues arising from this report.
Equalities impact
7.1 There are no equalities issues arising from this report.
Sustainability impact
8.1 There are no sustainability issues arising from this report.
Consultation and engagement
9.1 The school community and local elected members have been consulted and are supportive of the proposals.
Background reading/external references
Report to Council on 26 June 2014.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 5
Gillian Tee Director of Children and Families
Contact: Billy MacIntyre, Head of Resources, Children and Families E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 3366 Contact: Peter Watton, Acting Head of Corporate Property, Services for Communities E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 5962
Links
Coalition pledges P03 - Rebuild Portobello High School and continue progress on all other planned school developments, while providing adequate investment in the fabric of all schools. Council outcomes C01 - Our children have the best start in life, are able to make and sustain relationships and are ready to succeed C02 - Our children and young people are successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens making a positive contribution to their communities Single Outcome SO3 - Edinburgh’s children and young people enjoy their Agreement childhood and fulfil their potential. Appendices 1 Outline Design Proposals
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 6
APPENDIX 1
Outline Design Proposals
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 7
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 8
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 9
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 10
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 11
The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Supporting Veterans with Disabilities
Item number Report number Executive/routine Executive Wards All
Executive summary
This report seeks approval to use of Council Tax Discount Fund (CTDF) reserves to support disabled veterans’ housing in the city. Council approval is required to release funding from reserves. The Council is working with organisations in the city to address the housing needs of veterans, particularly those with a disability. The Scottish Veterans’ Garden City Association (SVGCA) seeks to build veterans’ accommodation in Edinburgh, but a shortfall of £250,000 has been identified. On 17 June 2014, Health, Social Care and Housing Committee agreed that this shortfall is funded through Council reserves.
Links
Coalition pledges P8, P11, P17 Council outcomes CO7, CO13, CO16, CO26 Single Outcome Agreement SO4
The City of Edinburgh Council
Supporting Veterans with Disabilities
Recommendations
It is recommended that the City of Edinburgh Council: 1.1 Agrees the use of £250,000 from the Council Tax Discount Fund to enable the development of a veterans’ housing project at Salvesen Gardens in Edinburgh, through the SVGCA. 1.2 Notes that a consortium bid has been made to the 2014 Veterans’ Accommodation Fund to enable disabled veterans homes to be delivered and that £150,400 is for accommodation in Edinburgh. Background
2.1 On 17 June 2014, Health, Social Care and Housing Committee approved the recommendation in the City Housing Strategy 2012-17 Annual Review to provide funding to enable a veterans development at Salvesen Gardens in Edinburgh. The Council is working with organisations in the city to address the housing needs of veterans, particularly those with a disability. Accessible housing, including wheelchair accessible housing, is delivered each year through the Affordable Housing Supply Programme. Main report
3.1 The SVGCA was successful in attracting Veterans’ Accommodation Fund monies from the UK Government and top up funding from the Scottish Government in 2013, to build veterans accommodation in Salvesen Gardens in Edinburgh. The SVGCA has provided the Council with costs to build five homes for disabled veterans which showed a shortfall of £250,000. SVGCA asked if the Council would fund this shortfall to enable the project to commence. Health, Social Care and Housing Committee, on 17 June 2014, agreed that this shortfall would be funded through CTDF. The development will use SVGCA’s ‘Community within a Community’ model which enables mutual support for stress and trauma. 3.2 The Council has also worked with SVGCA on a separate bid for a share of funding from the Veterans Accommodation Fund, announced by the UK Government in 2014. The bid was submitted in June 2014 as part of a consortium with SVGCA, Link Group, East Lothian Council and North Lanarkshire Council. A total of £551,190 is sought, with £150,400 for new affordable disabled veterans accommodation in Edinburgh. Successful bidders will be informed by the end of September 2014 and funding will be drawn down by February 2015.
The City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 2 3.3 The funding would be used to support the development of four disabled veterans’ homes in Edinburgh. The proposed funding model would allow SVGCA to have a 20% stake in the market value of a Local Authority or RSL home, with the remaining 80% being leased over minimum of 15 years. Additional lease or buy back options would be available following this. The £551,190 bid would provide SVGCA with the 20% capital required for 17 new homes in Edinburgh, North Lanarkshire and East Lothian. SVGCA would be responsible for tenanting the properties and guaranteeing rent over the lease period. 3.4 This project would be used as a pilot, building on existing partnership working through the Armed Forces Covenant signed by the Edinburgh Partnership on 12 March 2012. The application supports the principles of the covenant by committing to continued partnership working between veterans’ charities, the Council and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in order to provide more affordable homes that meet disabled veterans needs. 3.5 The Council will continue to work with SVGCA to identify further opportunities for veteran’s accommodation through the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). An update on the SHIP will be presented at Health Social Care & Housing Committee in November 2014. Measures of success
4.1 Funding from the CTDF will enable five new homes for disabled veterans to be delivered by SVGCA at Salvesen Gardens. 4.2 A successful bid to the Veterans Accommodation Fund will secure £150,400 for veterans housing in Edinburgh. Financial impact
5.1 CTDF is ring fenced to support building affordable housing. The £250,000 grant to SVGCA will enable investment in new affordable homes for disabled veterans in the city. 5.2 Funds will made available on the completion of specific works, verified through appropriate documentation. The process will be managed and monitored by staff within the Housing Service. 5.3 Subject to approval to use CTDF, construction on the project could begin in 2014. Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 Supporting the delivery of affordable homes for disabled veterans is in accordance with the City Housing Strategy 2012-17 Review, as approved by Health, Social Care and Housing committee on 17 June 2014. 6.2 The City Housing Strategy is reviewed annually to ensure the strategic housing priorities continue to reflect changes to policy, legislation, economic changes and wider Council priorities.
The City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 3 6.3 Council approval is required to release funding from the CTDF. Equalities impact
7.1 The provision of five new homes for disabled veterans in the city will have a positive impact on equalities by helping people with disabilities access suitable, affordable housing. 7.2 The tenants’ right to physical security will be enhanced through the provision of safe, secure homes. The homes will help to increase the tenants’ standard of living and their family and social life will be positively enhanced. Sustainability impact
8.1 Building new energy efficient homes reduces heating costs and carbon emissions. 8.2 The recommendations of this report will help secure development on brownfield sites. Consultation and engagement
9.1 The Council has worked closely with veterans groups including SVGCA, as well as partnerships through the Armed Forces Covenant to address veterans housing needs. It is a partnership bid working with other Councils and RSLs. Background reading/external references
City Housing Strategy 2012-17 Annual Review - Health Social Care and Housing Committee 17 June 2014 Health Social Care and Housing Committee - Minute of 17 June 2014
John Bury Acting Director of Services for Communities Contact: Alex Blyth, Acting Investment Manager E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 7348
The City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 4 Links
Coalition pledges P8 – Make sure the city’s people are well-housed, including encouraging developers to build residential communities, starting with brownfield sites. P11 – Encourage the development of co-operative housing arrangements. P17 – Continue efforts to develop the city’s gap sites and encourage regeneration. Council outcomes CO7 – Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration. CO13 – People are supported to live at home. CO16 – Well-housed – People live in a good quality home that is affordable and meets their needs in a well managed Neighbourhood. CO26 – The Council engages with stakeholders and works in partnership to improve services and deliver on agreed objectives. Single Outcome SO4 – Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved Agreement physical and social fabric. Appendices None
The City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 5 The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Proposed acquisition of Custom House, Leith
Item number Report number Executive Wards All, and Leith in particular
Executive summary
A one-off opportunity has arisen to purchase the grade A listed and historically important Custom House at the market value of £650,000, to bring this building within the ownership and control of the Council. This is to secure appropriate use of the building with a museum/heritage purpose for the benefit of Leith and the wider city. The timing of the proposed purchase means that negotiations with third parties in relation to its use have not yet been concluded. The risk is that if these negotiations are not concluded before the date of acquisition, in April 2015, the revenue costs (and any capital works that may be needed to the building) would require to be met by the Council. None of these costs have at this stage been quantified or budgeted. It is proposed that a Project Group be set up, to be chaired by the Convener of Culture and Sport, to have oversight of the final proposals for the building’s future.
Links
Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO20 Single Outcome Agreement SO4
Report
Proposed acquisition of Custom House, Leith
Recommendations
1.1 Should members be willing to accept the financial risks associated with this purchase (set out below), it is recommended that the Council: 1.1.1 approves the acquisition of Custom House, Leith, from the National Museum Scotland on the terms outlined in this report and on other terms and conditions to be agreed by the acting Director of Services for Communities and the Director of Corporate Governance; 1.1.2 approves the use of the Common Good Fund for this acquisition, subject to confirmation of good legal title, satisfactory building and services reports, and confirmation of the level of ongoing revenue costs; 1.1.3 notes the intention to secure appropriate use of the building to include a museum/heritage purpose for the benefit of Leith and the wider city and to negotiate with third parties accordingly; 1.1.4 approves the establishment of a Project Group as described at paragraph 3. 5, which will provide guidance and have oversight of the final proposals for the building’s future; and 1.1.5 notes that the future uses of this property, together with any future capital and revenue implications, will be presented to the Finance and Resources Committee for approval. Background
2.1 In 1983 the Leith Museum Trust was set up with the aim of preserving Leith’s heritage, and in particular, to find an appropriate building for a new Leith Museum. Various buildings have been considered and rejected over the years as a suitable home for this proposed museum, including Lamb’s House and the former Leith Police Station cells. 2.2 The Culture and Sport Service holds a collection of objects, photographs and oral history recordings relating to life in Leith. These collections relate to work in shipyards, print industries and transport, as well as housing, health, education, community events, sport and games. Some of the collections were transferred to the Service from the Leith Museum Trust in 2003, to be held in trust until the establishment of a Leith Museum. 2.3 An opportunity has arisen to acquire Custom House at market value.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2
Main report
3.1 The Council entered into negotiations with National Museums Scotland (NMS) for the purchase of the grade A building at Custom House, 69 Commercial Street, Leith, Edinburgh EH6 6JA and a provisional agreement has been reached at a purchase price of £650,000, payable by 6 April 2015, subject to the following terms and conditions: 3.1.1 Council approval; 3.1.2 confirmation of funding through use of the Common Good Fund for the acquisition; 3.1.3 confirmation of satisfactory level of ongoing revenue costs; 3.1.4 confirmation of good legal title; and 3.1.5 satisfactory building and services reports. 3.2 The Council commissioned an independent valuation of the property which confirms that the purchase price of £650,000 represents market value. 3.3 The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994 prescribes that the Council shall administer the Common Good Fund having regard to the interests of all the inhabitants of the city. This purchase is intended to facilitate the creation of museum/heritage space for Leith collections which would enhance the city’s cultural offering to residents and visitors alike. In addition, the purchase is a unique opportunity to ensure that this historic and architecturally important property is brought within the ownership and control of the Council, where appropriate use can be secured, for the benefit of Leith and the wider city. Subject to satisfactory confirmation of the conditions specified at 3.1.3 – 3.1.5 above, the purchase would be a permissible use of the Common Good Fund.
3.4 Discussions are under way with third parties in an effort to secure an arrangement which would not only include a museum/heritage function within Custom House but, ideally, do so in a revenue neutral way for the Council. The Culture and Sport service will assist in coordinating stakeholders and gathering Leith collections for display.
3.5 It is proposed that a Project Group would be established to provide guidance and oversight of this project. The Group would be chaired by the Convener of Culture and Sport and the membership would include the three Leith ward councillors and senior officers representing the relevant Council services. Any relevant third parties would be invited to attend meetings as required.
Measures of success
4.1 Purchase Custom House and reach an agreement with a suitable third party to facilitate the creation of a museum/heritage purpose and space within Custom House for Leith collections which would enhance the city’s cultural offering.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3
Financial impact
5.1 The current balance of the Common Good Fund is circa £1,600,000. The Common Good Fund is not projected to achieve an annual surplus. 5.2 It is proposed that the purchase price of £650,000 and associated legal and professional fees be met from the Common Good Fund. The property would be allocated as an asset of the Common Good Fund. 5.3 The current property tax regime will change from Stamp Duty Land Tax to Land and Buildings Transaction Tax on 1 April 2015. The intention is to complete the purchase by 6 April 2015 which means that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax may be payable. The rates for that have not yet been set and are to be announced in September 2014. The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax would have to be met from the Common Good Fund. 5.4 Although no negotiations have yet been concluded with any third party, the intention is that, ideally, the future use would be revenue neutral for the Council. 5.5 The NMS has indicated it would not accept a purchase that was conditional on the Council securing a third party to manage the building and meet the ongoing running costs. 5.6 The current running costs are understood to be around £100,000 per annum (the building is currently used for museum collections storage which requires careful management of environmental conditions). The future annual running costs are currently unknown; these will be ascertained ahead of acquisition as noted at clause 3.1.3. 5.7 In the event that the Council is unable to secure a suitable third party arrangement, the Council would require to meet the ongoing revenue costs such as security, rates, insurance, repairs etc. 5.8 Should the building require some capital improvement/enabling works, the Council would require to meet these costs. 5.9 These costs would require to be considered in the 2015/16 budget process.
Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 There are two main risks associated with this proposal. 6.2 If the purchase does not proceed, this historic and architecturally important property would likely be lost as a potential cultural asset for the benefit of Leith and the wider city. 6.3 If the purchase does proceed before the Council has concluded a suitable third party arrangement, as set out above, the Council would require to meet the unbudgeted ongoing revenue costs and, if any capital works were required to the building, the cost of these would also fall to the Council.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4
6.4 As noted above, it is proposed that a Project Group, to be chaired by the Convener of Culture and Sport, would be established to provide guidance and oversight of the project. Equalities impact
7.1 Not applicable.
Sustainability impact
8.1 Not applicable.
Consultation and engagement
9.1 The Culture and Sport Service has worked with the Leith Museum Trust and the Leith Museum campaign over recent years to find a home for the Leith collections, and discussions are under way with third parties.
Background reading/external references
None.
Alastair D Maclean Director of Corporate Governance
Contact: Lynne Halfpenny, Head of Culture and Sport E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 7305
Contact: Peter Watton, Acting Head of Corporate Property E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 5962
Links
Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO19 -Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 5
CO20 Culture, sport and major events – Edinburgh continues to be a leading cultural city where culture and sport play a central part in the lives and futures of citizens
Single Outcome SO4 – Edinburgh’s communities are safer and have improved Agreement physical and social fabric Appendices n/a
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 6
The City of Edinburgh Council
10.00am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Treasury Management: Annual Report 2013/14 – referral from the Finance and Resources Committee
Item number Report number Wards All
Executive summary
The Finance and Resources Committee on 30 July 2014 considered a report on Treasury Management activity in 2013/14. The Committee referred the report to Council for approval to change the current Treasury Management governance arrangements. It was proposed that the Treasury Management Strategy, mid-term and annual reports would be taken to the Finance and Resources Committee before being considered by Council. Committee Terms of Reference would be adjusted accordingly.
Links
Coalition pledges See attached report Council outcomes See attached report Single Outcome See attached report Agreement
Appendices See attached report
Terms of Referral
Treasury Management: Annual Report 2013/14
Terms of referral
1.1 On 30 July 2014 the Finance and Resources Committee considered a report on Treasury Management activity in 2013/14. The Council had previously adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Services (the CIPFA Code) and CIPFA’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities and set out the responsibilities for approval and scrutiny of its Treasury Management activities. However, the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee meeting on 3 April 2014, when considering the Treasury Management Annual Strategy for 2014/15, agreed that Treasury Management reports should be considered by the Finance and Resources Committee before being considered by Council. This splitting of the monitoring and governance roles would align with best practice under the CIPFA Code.
1.2 There was a statutory requirement in Scotland for full Council to approve the Annual Investment Strategy, the Annual Investment Report and in relation to the CIPFA Code, full Council would also consider the mid-term report. The sequence for the consideration of Treasury Management reports being proposed was therefore as follows:
• Consideration by the Corporate Management Team;
• Consideration by the Finance and Resources Committee which would refer the report for approval to Council;
• Consideration for approval by the Council; and
• Referral to Governance Risk and Best Value Committee for scrutiny.
1.3 The Finance and Resources Committee agreed:
1) To note the Annual Report on Treasury Management for 2013/14.
2) To recommend that the Council approved the changes to the Treasury Management governance arrangements set out in section 3.5 of the report, and also the necessary adjustments to the Committee Terms of Reference, as follows:- Finance and Resources Committee (new paragraph) 6.6.4 “monitoring the Council’s Treasury Management policies and practices”
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2 of 3 Governance, Risk and Best Value (new paragraph) 10.5.2 (c) “the Council’s Treasury Management strategy and policies”
3) To recommend that the Council delegated authority to the Director of Corporate Governance to take such actions and make minor adjustments to the documents as may be necessary to implement its decision in relation to the report.
4) To refer the report to Council for approval and subsequent referral by Council to the Governance Risk and Best Value Committee for their scrutiny. For Decision/Action
2.1 The City of Edinburgh Council is asked to approve the changes to the Treasury Management governance arrangements set out in section 3.5 of the report, including the necessary adjustments to the Committee Terms of Reference.
Background reading / external references
Treasury Management: Annual Report 2013/14
Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
Contact: Veronica MacMillan, Committee Clerk
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4283
Links
Coalition pledges See attached report Council outcomes See attached report Single Outcome See attached report Agreement Appendices See attached report
The City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3 of 3 Finance and Resources Committee
2.00pm, Wednesday, 30 July 2014
Treasury Management: Annual Report 2013/14
Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards
Executive summary
The purpose of this report is to give an update on Treasury Management activity in 2013/14. In accordance with the Strategy set in March 2013 the Council completed no borrowing during the financial year and funded capital expenditure temporarily from investments. This approach generated significant short-term savings in Loans Charges for the Council. The investment return for 2013/14 continued to show significant out-performance against the Fund’s benchmark, although low in absolute terms, while maintaining the security of the investments. A change to the current Treasury Management governance arrangements is proposed recommending that the Treasury Management strategy, mid-term and annual reports are taken to the Finance and Resources Committee before being considered by Council.
Links
Coalition pledges Council outcomes Single Outcome Agreement
Report
Treasury Management: Annual Report 2013/14
Recommendations 1.1 It is recommended that the Committee: 1.1.1 notes the Annual Report on Treasury Management for 2013/14; 1.1.2 recommends that the Council approves the changes to the Treasury Management governance arrangements set out in section 3.5; 1.1.3 refers the report to Council for approval and subsequent referral by Council to the Governance Risk and Best Value Committee for their scrutiny; and 1.1.4 considers the training on Treasury Management activities it requires.
Background
2.1 The Council has adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management in the Public Sector, and under the code, an Annual Report on Treasury Management has to be submitted to the Council after the end of each financial year. A separate mid-term report will also be produced during the financial year and therefore, no update on the current year is included in this report.
Main report
3.1 Borrowing Requirement 2013/14 3.1.1 As shown in table 1 below, capital expenditure to be funded by borrowing in 2013/14 was £53.666m.
£m Ne w capital expenditure to be financed by borrowing 107.939 Add maturing loans 27.742 Less repayment by services committees -82.015 Net Funding Requirement 53.666
Table 1 – 2013/14 Debt Funding Requirements
3.1.2 The Net Funding Requirement is significantly lower than had previously been reported due to a number of factors including £6m repayment of capital advances from the HRA and the re-phasing of trams grant.
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 2
3.2 Borrowing Overview 3.2.1 As can be seen from Figure 1 below PWLB rates increased during the first half of 2013/14.
3.2.2 The increase was mainly due to the US Fed announcing that if the economic situation warranted it they may begin to taper their QE programme. This announcement caused a steepening of the yield curve in the US with the UK following closely. Some of the increase was recouped after weaker than expected US economic data meant no tapering was announced in September. There has since been an increase due to a better UK economic outlook and the prospect of an earlier rise in UK Bank Rate than markets had previously been anticipating. 3.2.3 The strategy for 2013/14 approved in March 2013 was to continue to fund capital expenditure in the short term by reducing the Council’s investments further. As the Council’s future plans and cash flows became clearer, consideration was also going to be given to taking debt with a sub-10 year maturity. Given the lower than anticipated borrowing requirement, it became clear that there would be no requirement to undertake external borrowing during 2013/14 and investment balances were reduced to fund capital expenditure in the short term. Interest rates did go up in the period, with a flattening of the yield curve, although this was reversed a little later in the year. The strategy has produced significant savings to the Council, with the Council’s unaudited accounts showing a reduction of over £4m in Loans Charges. The Council’s Loan Fund Pooled Interest Rate fell to 5.083% 2013/14 from 5.432% the previous year. 3.2.4 As noted above there was a Net Funding Requirement of £53.666m, and with no external borrowing completed during the year, the Council’s under borrowed position increased to £110m at 31st March 2014. Table 2 below summarises the outstanding debt portfolio during the year. Appendix 1 provides details of the
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 3
Council’s outstanding PWLB debt at 31 March 2014. As can be seen from the table, the Council’s actual external debt decreased by £27.7m.
Type of Loan Balance Borrowing Borrowing Balance 01.04.2013 Raised Repaid 31.03.2014 £m £m £m £m PWLB - fixed 1,169.077 0.000 -27.647 1,141.430 PWLB - variable 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EIB 0.095 0.000 -0.095 0.000 Market 280.900 0.000 0.000 280.900 Temp 9.757 2.202 0.000 11.959 1,459.829 2.202 -27.742 1,434.289
Capital Advances 1,518.513 1,544.437 Under-borrowed 58.684 Under -borrowed 110.148 Table 2 – Outstanding Debt Portfolio 2013/14
3.3 Investment Out-turn 2013/14 3.3.1 The Council’s money is invested via the Treasury Cash Fund. The Cash Fund encompasses a number of organisations, including Lothian Pension Fund. Interest is accrued on a monthly basis and performance is evaluated against a benchmark, which is 7-day LIBID. 3.3.2 Figure 2 below shows the investment performance during the financial year.
3.3.3 The average interest rate on the Fund for the year was 0.526149%, which continued to outperform the benchmark of 0.354795%. The Fund generated income of £459k for the financial year to CEC.
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 4
3.3.4 The emphasis continued to remain on security during the financial year with the return of the principal sum being the main concern. With the Strategy being around the security of the investments, Cash Fund money invested with banking institutions is mostly on call. Rates being achieved with Local Authority deposits and in Treasury Bills have remained low during the year which has given another year of difficulty securing principal while achieving an attractive interest rate. In December rates paid by Local Authorities for short term cash increased due to seasonal cash shortage and fewer participants in the market. The Council was therefore able to take advantage of this albeit the investment was only for a short duration and as can be seen in Figure 2 above increased the performance of the Fund in January. Figure 3 below shows the distribution of the Cash Fund investments since April 2007.
3.4 Cash Fund Investment Strategy 3.4.1 The Cash Fund’s Investment Strategy continued to be based around the security of the investments. Figure 4 below shows the weighted average life (WAL) of the Cash Fund since inception.
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 5
3.4.2 The WAL (weighted average time to the final maturity of investments) dropped to 18.1 days at the end of March. This was mainly due to the increase of funds on deposit being invested on call and longer term fixed deposits with Local Authorities moving closer to maturity. 3.4.3 Figure 5 below shows the percentage asset distribution at the end of the financial year. An increase in yield offered by UK Treasury Bills has given the Council the opportunity to invest again at an interest rate greater than Money Market Funds and some call accounts.
3.5 Governance and Compliance 3.5.1 The Council has previously adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Services (the CIPFA Code) and CIPFA’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities and set out the responsibilities for Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 6
approval and scrutiny of its Treasury Management activities. However, at the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee meeting in April, when considering the Treasury Management Annual Strategy for 2014/15, the view was expressed that Treasury Management reports should be considered by the Finance & Resources Committee before being considered by Council. This splitting of the monitoring and governance roles would align with best practice under the CIPFA Code. 3.5.2 There is a statutory requirement in Scotland for full Council to approve the Annual Investment Strategy, and Annual Investment Report and having regard to the CIPFA Code also consider the mid-term report. The sequence for the consideration of Treasury Management reports being proposed is therefore as follows: . Consideration by the Corporate Management Team; . Consideration by the Finance and Resources Committee which recommends approval to Council; . Consideration for approval by the Council; and . Referral to Governance Risk and Best Value Committee for scrutiny. 3.5.3 In order to effect the change, Council is asked to approve the following revised arrangements for the approval and scrutiny of its Treasury Management arrangements: The Council will receive reports on its Treasury Management policies, practices and activities, including, as a minimum, an annual strategy and plan in advance of the year, a mid-year review, and an annual report after its close, in the form prescribed in its Treasury Management Practices (TMPs). The Council delegates responsibility for the implementation and regular monitoring of its Treasury Management policies and practices to the Finance and Resources Committee of the Council, and for the execution and administration of Treasury Management decisions to the Head of Finance who will act in accordance with the organisation’s policy statement and TMPs and CIPFA’s Standard of Professional Practice on Treasury Management. The Council nominates the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee of the Council to be responsible for ensuring effective scrutiny of the Treasury Management strategy and policies. 3.5.4 Members of the Finance and Resources Committee (and indeed full Council since ultimately the Council takes the decisions on Treasury Policy) are invited to consider whether they currently have sufficient knowledge and understanding to discharge the role effectively and what training or support they consider would best assist them in carrying out the role.
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 7
3.5.5 During the financial year, the Council operated within the treasury limits set out within the Treasury Policy Statements.
3.6 Conclusions 3.6.1 In accordance with the Strategy set out earlier in the year the Council completed no borrowing during the financial year and funded capital expenditure from investments. This approach generated significant short term savings for the Council. 3.6.2 The investment return for 2013/14 continued to show significant out- performance against the Fund’s benchmark, although low in absolute terms, while maintaining the security of the investments.
Measures of success
4.1 The success of the Treasury Section can be measured by the out-performance of the Treasury Cash Fund against its benchmark and managing the Council’s debt portfolio to minimise the cost to the Council while mitigating risk.
Financial impact
5.1 The Council continues to manage it’s debt portfolio so as to minimise the medium term cost of funding its capital projects. 5.2 The Treasury Cash Fund has generated significant additional income for the Council.
Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 The Council complies with the relevant CIPFA code of practice whilst undertaking Treasury Management activities. The significant financial risks associated with Treasury Management activities have been successfully managed during 2013/14.
Equalities impact
7.1 There are no adverse equality impacts arising from this report.
Sustainability impact
8.1 There are no adverse sustainability impacts arising from this report.
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 8
Consultation and engagement
9.1 None.
Background reading / external references
None.
Alastair Maclean Director of Corporate Governance Contact: Innes Edwards, Principal Treasury and Banking Manager E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 469 6291
Links
Coalition pledges P30 - Continue to Maintain a sound financial position including long- term financial planning Council outcomes C025 - The Council has efficient and effective services that deliver on objectives Single Outcome SO1 - Edinburgh's Economy Delivers increased investment, jobs and Agreement opportunities for all Appendices Appendix 1 - outstanding PWLB debt as at 31 March 2014
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 9
Appendix 1 Outstanding PWLB debt as at 31st March 2014
Loan Start Maturity Loan Principal Int Ref Date Date Type Outstanding Rate % 495456 21/04/2009 21/04/2014 M 10,000,000.00 2.64 76216 15/05/1954 15/05/2014 E 500.32 4 495089 01/12/2008 01/06/2014 M 5,000,000.00 3.55 76224 07/01/1955 15/11/2014 E 1,493.33 3.75 495114 08/12/2008 08/12/2014 M 5,000,000.00 3.3 495413 30/03/2009 30/03/2015 M 5,000,000.00 2.84 495502 12/05/2009 12/05/2015 M 10,000,000.00 3.08 468121 23/02/1990 15/05/2015 M 8,000,000.00 10.875 468872 06/11/1990 25/03/2016 M 10,000,000.00 11.375 469721 17/05/1991 25/03/2016 M 10,000,000.00 11 496093 13/10/2009 13/04/2016 M 5,000,000.00 2.95 495471 23/04/2009 23/04/2016 M 5,000,000.00 2.96 469013 17/01/1991 15/05/2016 M 15,000,000.00 11.25 495565 09/06/2009 09/06/2016 M 5,000,000.00 3.37 470061 27/09/1991 25/09/2016 M 2,736,307.00 10.5 469898 15/08/1991 15/11/2016 M 10,000,000.00 10.875 495143 10/12/2008 10/12/2016 M 5,000,000.00 3.61 499194 02/12/2011 02/06/2017 M 5,000,000.00 2.28 471030 27/03/1992 25/09/2017 M 10,000,000.00 10.625 494911 09/10/2008 09/10/2017 M 5,000,000.00 4.39 471179 03/04/1992 25/03/2018 M 30,000,000.00 10.875 495472 23/04/2009 23/04/2018 M 15,000,000.00 3.24 471710 17/09/1992 15/05/2018 M 8,496,500.00 9.75 495566 09/06/2009 09/06/2018 M 5,000,000.00 3.75 473528 17/09/1993 15/11/2018 M 5,000,000.00 7.875 474273 23/03/1994 15/11/2018 M 5,000,000.00 8 474226 14/03/1994 11/03/2019 M 2,997,451.21 7.625 473697 18/10/1993 25/03/2019 M 5,000,000.00 7.875 495414 30/03/2009 30/03/2019 M 5,000,000.00 3.46 495457 21/04/2009 21/04/2019 M 10,000,000.00 3.4 495473 23/04/2009 23/04/2019 M 5,000,000.00 3.38 495030 12/11/2008 12/11/2019 A 2,991,873.55 3.96 474274 23/03/1994 15/11/2019 M 5,000,000.00 8 474935 07/12/1994 15/11/2019 M 10,000,000.00 8.625 495086 01/12/2008 01/12/2019 A 2,971,609.35 3.65 496260 01/12/2009 01/12/2019 M 5,000,000.00 3.77 496354 14/12/2009 14/12/2019 M 10,000,000.00 3.91 475161 15/02/1995 25/03/2020 M 5,000,000.00 8.625 495458 21/04/2009 21/04/2020 M 10,000,000.00 3.54 495501 12/05/2009 12/05/2020 M 10,000,000.00 3.96 474801 21/10/1994 15/05/2020 M 5,000,000.00 8.625 Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 10
474936 07/12/1994 15/05/2020 M 5,000,000.00 8.625 499159 21/11/2011 21/05/2020 M 15,000,000.00 2.94 476237 16/08/1995 03/08/2020 M 2,997,451.21 8.375 474958 09/12/1994 15/11/2020 M 5,000,000.00 8.625 497203 10/05/2010 10/05/2021 A 3,587,924.66 3.09 474802 21/10/1994 15/05/2021 M 10,000,000.00 8.625 475259 10/03/1995 15/05/2021 M 11,900,000.00 8.75 476031 12/06/1995 15/05/2021 M 10,000,000.00 8 497378 02/06/2010 02/06/2021 M 5,000,000.00 3.89 474661 16/08/1994 03/08/2021 M 2,997,451.21 8.5 474418 28/04/1994 25/09/2021 M 5,000,000.00 8.125 495474 23/04/2009 23/04/2022 M 5,000,000.00 3.76 476030 12/06/1995 15/05/2022 M 10,200,000.00 8 497425 14/06/2010 14/06/2022 M 10,000,000.00 3.95 475781 31/03/1995 25/09/2022 M 6,206,000.00 8.625 475176 16/02/1995 03/02/2023 M 2,997,451.21 8.625 475822 24/04/1995 25/03/2023 M 10,000,000.00 8.5 476731 05/12/1995 15/05/2023 M 5,200,000.00 8 473573 20/09/1993 14/09/2023 M 2,997,451.21 7.875 473574 20/09/1993 14/09/2023 M 584,502.98 7.875 477656 08/05/1996 25/09/2023 M 10,000,000.00 8.375 496094 13/10/2009 13/10/2023 M 5,000,000.00 3.87 476732 05/12/1995 15/11/2023 M 10,000,000.00 8 497197 10/05/2010 10/05/2024 M 10,000,000.00 4.32 476350 28/09/1995 28/09/2024 M 2,895,506.10 8.25 501250 14/05/2012 14/11/2024 M 10,000,000.00 3.36 496355 14/12/2009 14/12/2024 A 7,840,398.50 3.66 1478311 17/10/1996 25/03/2025 M 10,000,000.00 7.875 497199 10/05/2010 10/05/2025 M 5,000,000.00 4.37 501723 16/11/2012 16/05/2025 M 20,000,000.00 2.88 1478760 13/02/1997 18/05/2025 M 10,000,000.00 7.375 1478830 20/02/1997 15/11/2025 M 20,000,000.00 7.375 496261 01/12/2009 01/12/2025 A 12,018,742.29 3.64 476771 21/12/1995 21/12/2025 M 2,397,960.97 7.875 1479368 21/05/1997 15/05/2026 M 10,000,000.00 7.125 1479530 28/05/1997 15/05/2026 M 10,000,000.00 7.25 479851 29/08/1997 15/11/2026 M 5,000,000.00 7 1479594 24/06/1997 15/11/2026 M 5,328,077.00 7.125 1479783 07/08/1997 15/11/2026 M 15,000,000.00 6.875 1480039 13/10/1997 25/03/2027 M 10,000,000.00 6.375 1480175 22/10/1997 25/03/2027 M 5,000,000.00 6.5 1480241 13/11/1997 15/05/2027 M 3,649,966.00 6.5 1480257 17/11/1997 15/05/2027 M 5,000,000.00 6.5 501797 13/12/2012 13/06/2027 M 20,000,000.00 3.18 1480580 12/03/1998 15/11/2027 M 8,677,693.00 5.875 497854 06/09/2010 06/09/2028 M 10,000,000.00 3.85 498768 14/07/2011 14/07/2029 M 10,000,000.00 4.9
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 11
368245 14/07/1950 03/03/2030 E 4,044.59 3 498769 14/07/2011 14/07/2030 M 10,000,000.00 4.93 80101 15/06/1951 15/05/2031 E 4,101.35 3 497855 06/09/2010 06/09/2031 M 20,000,000.00 3.95 499252 15/12/2011 15/06/2032 M 10,000,000.00 3.98 498994 15/09/2011 15/09/2036 M 10,000,000.00 4.47 499019 22/09/2011 22/09/2036 M 10,000,000.00 4.49 494139 10/12/2007 10/12/2037 M 10,000,000.00 4.49 498974 08/09/2011 08/09/2038 M 10,000,000.00 4.67 498995 15/09/2011 15/09/2039 M 10,000,000.00 4.52 499052 06/10/2011 06/10/2043 M 20,000,000.00 4.35 498851 09/08/2011 09/02/2046 M 20,000,000.00 4.8 491119 23/01/2006 23/07/2046 M 10,000,000.00 3.7 491226 23/01/2006 23/07/2046 M 10,000,000.00 3.7 491628 19/05/2006 19/11/2046 M 10,000,000.00 4.25 494202 07/01/2008 07/01/2048 M 5,000,000.00 4.4 491258 27/01/2006 27/07/2051 M 1,250,000.00 3.7 492718 16/01/2007 16/07/2052 M 40,000,000.00 4.25 492853 30/01/2007 30/07/2052 M 10,000,000.00 4.35 492908 13/02/2007 13/08/2052 M 20,000,000.00 4.35 492937 20/02/2007 20/08/2052 M 70,000,000.00 4.35 492960 22/02/2007 22/08/2052 M 50,000,000.00 4.35 493036 08/03/2007 08/09/2052 M 5,000,000.00 4.25 493334 30/05/2007 30/11/2052 M 10,000,000.00 4.6 493377 11/06/2007 11/12/2052 M 15,000,000.00 4.7 493383 12/06/2007 12/12/2052 M 25,000,000.00 4.75 493428 05/07/2007 05/01/2053 M 12,000,000.00 4.8 493516 25/07/2007 25/01/2053 M 5,000,000.00 4.65 493701 10/08/2007 10/02/2053 M 5,000,000.00 4.55 493872 24/08/2007 24/02/2053 M 7,500,000.00 4.5 493920 13/09/2007 13/03/2053 M 5,000,000.00 4.5 493979 12/10/2007 12/04/2053 M 5,000,000.00 4.6 494045 05/11/2007 05/05/2057 M 5,000,000.00 4.6 494725 15/08/2008 15/02/2058 M 5,000,000.00 4.39 499195 02/12/2011 02/12/2061 M 5,000,000.00 3.98
1,141,430,457.04
Finance and Resources Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 12
City of Edinburgh Council
10.00 am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Edmonstone Estate Application – Background Information
Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards Portobello/Craigmillar
Executive summary
The report is to accompany agenda item 8.5 in relation to the pre-determination hearing for land at 545 Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh (Edmonstone Estate) which is being referred from the Development Management Sub-Committee. It provides background information in relation to separate decisions for recent planning applications on the same site.
Links
Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO7, CO19, CO23 Single Outcome Agreement SO4
Report
Background report on land at Edmonstone Estate.
Recommendations
1.1 It is recommended that Council notes the contents of the report.
Background
2.1 Three planning applications have recently been considered by the Development Management Sub-Committee for the same site at Edmonstone Estate. These were: • Proposed residential development, ancillary uses and associated development (planning reference 14/01057/PPP) considered by means of a pre-determination hearing on 30 July 2014 and is minded to refuse. As the proposed residential development is a significant departure from the development plan and contrary to National Planning Framework 3 in terms of the Central Scotland Green Network, the application must be referred to Full Council for a decision. • Proposed cemetery, crematorium, memorial garden, chapel of rest and associated development (planning reference 13/05302/PPP) considered on 13 August 2014 and is minded to grant. There is an outstanding objection from SEPA to this application and it will need to be notified to Scottish Ministers. • Proposed cemetery (including provision for woodland burials), memorial garden, chapel of rest and associated development (planning reference 13/05235/PPP) 13 August 2014 and is minded to grant. There is an outstanding objection from SEPA to this application and it will need to be notified to Scottish Ministers. 2.2 This report is to provide background context in relation to the consideration of the report of pre-determination hearing – 545 Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh (Edmonstone Estate).
Main report
3.1 As context for the consideration of the outcome of the pre-determination hearing there have also been two further applications, covering the same site, for the proposed development of cemetery and crematorium uses.
City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 2
3.2 These two applications were considered by the Development Management Sub- Committee on 13 August 2014. The committee has resolved to grant the two applications, against officer recommendation. Both applications will be reported back to a future meeting of the Development Management Sub-Committee with detailed conditions, reasons and informatives.
3.3 The proposal for housing is considered to be a significant departure from the development plan. A significant departure is one that would be contrary to the vision or wider spatial strategy of the plan.
3.4 The site is located within the green belt and also forms part of the South East Wedge Parkland Open Space Proposal (in both the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan and emerging Local Development Plan) which is part of the strategic green network. The open space proposal forms part of the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) which is a national development in National Planning Framework 3.
3.5 National Planning Framework 3, and its predecessors, identifies the CSGN as a national priority. The project supports a wide range of environmental enhancement measures and aims to identify and strengthen connections between both publically accessible greenspaces and areas of habitat for wildlife.
3.6 The Council’s Open Space Strategy identifies the green network within Edinburgh and proposes a number of actions to connect the green network. One of which is the South East Wedge Parkland proposal that covers the application(s) site.
3.7 A major housing development of up to 368 units on this site is not part of the planned Local Development Plan Settlement Strategy. It would result in the loss of the green belt, lead to coalescence with Danderhall in Midlothian and break the strategic green link impacting on the aims of the Central Scotland Green Network. Taking all of this into account it is considered that a housing proposal here is a significant departure from the development plan.
3.8 Conversely, the cemetery and crematorium proposals, although not recognised in local plan policy as permitted green belt uses, are still classified as open space. Whilst the proposed use is not the type of open space envisaged at this location, it would not undermine the objectives of the CSGN. It would begin to ubranise the area but not to such a significant degree as housing would.
Measures of success
4.1 The measure of success is that the Council takes an appropriately informed decision of the planning application which has been referred following a pre- determination hearing.
Financial impact
City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 3
5.1 The applications would be subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions.
Risk, policy, compliance and governance impact
6.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low.
Equalities impact
7.1 The applications have been assessed in terms of equalities and human rights and no issues have been identified at this stage.
Sustainability impact
8.1 The applications are not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance.
Consultation and engagement
9.1 As major developments the proposals have been through pre-application consultation procedures and relevant notifications and consultations as part of the planning application process.
Background reading/external references
Planning reference 14/01057/PPP - Development Management Sub-Committee 30 July 2014. Planning reference 13/05235/PPP and 13/05302/PPP - Development Management Sub-Committee 14 August 2014.
John Bury Acting Director of Services for Communities
Contact: Kenneth Bowes, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 6724
City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 4
Links
Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO7 Edinburgh draws new investment in development and regeneration. CO19 Attractive Places and Well Maintained – Edinburgh remains an attractive city through the development of high quality buildings and places and the delivery of high standards and maintenance of infrastructure and public realm. CO23 Well engaged and well informed – Communities and individuals are empowered and supported to improve local outcomes and foster a sense of community. Single Outcome SO4 Edinburgh's communities are safer and have improved Agreement physical and social fabric.
Appendices None
City of Edinburgh Council - 21 August 2014 Page 5
City of Edinburgh Council
10.00 am, Thursday, 21 August 2014
Report of pre-determination hearing - 545 Old
Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh - (Edmonstone Estate) (Land 447 metres north east of) – referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee
Item number Report number Wards All
Executive summary
To consider the recommendation of the Development Management Sub-Committee on a planning application which was the subject of a pre-determination hearing under the procedures in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.
Links
Coalition pledges See attached report Council outcomes See attached report Single Outcome See attached report Agreement
Appendices Appendix 1: Report by the Acting Head of Planning and Buliding Standards Appendix 2: Appeal decision dated 9 October 2013, reference PPA-230-2087 Appendix 3: Slide showing former mine workings on the site (appendix 3)
Termsrms of Referral
Report of pre-determination hearing - 545 Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh - (Edmonstone Estate) (Land 447 metres north east of) – referral from the Development Management Sub-Committee
Terms of referral
1.1. The Development Management Sub-Committee on 30 July 2014 considered a planning application by Sheratan Limited for planning permission in principle for residential development, ancilliary uses and associated development (application no 14/01057/PPP) at land 447 metres north east of 545 Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh by means of a pre-determination hearing and referral to the full Council.
1.2 The Sub-Committee received
1.2.1 A presentation on the attached report (appendix 1) by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
1.2.2 A presentation by the applicant’s agent in support of the proposal, a copy of an appeal decision dated 9 October 2013, reference PPA-230-2087 in respect of Edmonstone Estate, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh (appendix 2) and a slide showing former mine workings on the site (appendix 3). Appendixes 2 and 3 were submitted, as part of the presentation, on behalf of the applicant.
1.3 Report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.
1.3.1 The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards gave details of the application and the planning considerations involved for planning permission in principle.
1.3.2 The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards considered that the proposal represented a significant departure from the development plan due to the green belt location, which was not justified in this instance and was also contrary to National Planning Framework 3 in terms of the Central Scotland Green Network.
1.3.3 He explained that housing was not an appropriate green belt use and the housing need was being met through the new local development plan
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 2 of 6 1.3.4 This proposal would undermine the landscape setting of the city and lead to coalescence with Danderhall.
1.3.5 The proposals would also be detrimental to the character and composition of the local landscape, whilst being contrary to the open space proposal that covered the site. In conclusion there were no material considerations which justifed a departure from the development plan.
1.3.6 He recommended that the application for planning permission in principle be refused for the above reasons.
1.4 Gordon Steel QC gave a presentation on behalf of the applicant and advised that:
1.4.1 The appeal decision for the adjacent site which was before members was relevant to this application as the greenbelt considerations were the same for this application.
1.4.2 The Local Development Plan (LDP) had proposed several sites within the greenbelt for housing and granting permission for this development would ease the pressure on more sensitive sites identified in the LDP, an example would be Cammo.
1.4.3 This site was unique in regards to greenbelt and did not meet one of the main criteria of public access. This was because it was fenced off due to being considered unsafe as a result of previous underground workings.
1.4.4 The application would be an enabling development with the advantage of rendering the site safe by the stabilisation of the former mine workings. These would cost in the region of £10 million. It would also allow for the rebuilding of the South Lodge to be undertaken, for which planning and listed building consent had already been granted. It was explained that the developer currently did not have the finance available to carry out the remedial works and these could only be funded through the development.
1.4.5 Reference was made to paragraph 15 of the Notice of Intention by the Reporter which highlighted the shortfall of housing land supply within Edinburgh. Reference was also made to the SESPlan supplementary housing supply guidance, approved by Scottish Ministers which set out the land requirement for the council as 29,510 homes. The applicants stated that the current overall shortfall was approximately 6,000 units and this proposal would help meet this shortfall.
1.4.6 Mr Steel stated that this was the first greenbelt application he was aware of in Edinburgh which had not attracted any public objections and had received no adverse comments at the consultation meetings. He further added that as there had been previous development on the site, the
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 3 of 6 classification of this as a greenbelt development was open to interpretation and that it could be considered that this site was brownfield. Subsequently, granting consent would not set a precedent for any future greenbelt applications.
1.4.7 In conclusion he asked that the Sub-Committee recommend to the Council that permission be granted.
1.5 Copies of representations received during the consultation period were available for the inspection of members of the Sub-Committee and members of the Sub- Committee had the opportunity to visit the site.
1.6 Both parties were questioned on their presentations by members of the Sub- Committee.
Motion 1.7 To recommend to the Council the application be refused for the reasons:
1.7.1 The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 12, Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 as there are no compelling reasons to override the strong policy presumption against development in the Green Belt. The housing need is being met through the new Local Development Plan.
1.7.2 The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 7 and Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Des 8 and Env 11 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 7 and Env 11 as the development would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area and would be detrimental to the character and composition of the local landscape.
1.7.3 The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Open Space and Recreation Proposal OSR 4 South East Wedge Parkland and the Second Local Development Plan Greenspace Proposal GS4 South East Wedge Parkland as the development would introduce housing into the area prejudicing the open space designation and the delivery of the strategic green network.
- moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Child.
Amendment
1.8 To recommend to the Council that planning permission be granted.
1.9 The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to submit conditions to be attached to the consent to the Council for approval.
- moved by Councillor Howat, seconded by Councillor Mowat.
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 4 of 6 Voting
For the motion - 6 votes
For the amendment - 6 votes
1.10 The number of votes cast for the Motion and for the Amendment being equal the Convener gave his casting vote in favour of the Motion.
Decision 1.11 To recommend to the Council the application be refused for the reasons:
1.11.1 The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 12, Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 as there are no compelling reasons to override the strong policy presumption against development in the Green Belt. The housing need is being met through the new Local Development Plan.
1.11.2 The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 7 and Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Des 8 and Env 11 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 7 and Env 11 as the development would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area and would be detrimental to the character and composition of the local landscape.
1.11.3 The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Open Space and Recreation Proposal OSR 4 South East Wedge Parkland and the Second Local Development Plan Greenspace Proposal GS4 South East Wedge Parkland as the development would introduce housing into the area prejudicing the open space designation and the delivery of the strategic green network.
For Decision/Action
2.1 The Council is asked to agree the recommendation of the Development Management Sub-Committee.
Background reading / external references
Development management Sub-Committee 30 July 2014.
Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance
Contact: Blair Ritchie, Assistant Committee Clerk
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 4085
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 5 of 6 Links
Coalition pledges See attached report Council outcomes See attached report Single Outcome See attached report Agreement Appendices See attached report
City of Edinburgh Council – 21 August 2014 Page 6 of 6 Development Management Sub Committee
Wednesday 30 July 2014
Application for Planning Permission in Principle 14/01057/PPP At Land 447 Metres Northeast Of 545, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh Residential Development, Ancillary Uses and Associated Development.
Item number Report number
Wards A17 - Portobello/Craigmillar
Summary
The proposal represents a significant departure from the development plan due to the green belt location which is not justified in this instance and it is also contrary to National Planning Framework 3 in terms of the Central Scotland Green Network. Housing is not an appropriate green belt use, housing need is being met through the new local development plan and the proposal would undermine the landscape setting of the city and lead to coalescence with Danderhall. The proposals would also be detrimental to the character and composition of the local landscape, whilst being contrary to the open space proposal that covers the site. There are no material considerations which justify a departure from the development plan.
Development Management Sub-Committee – Page 1 of 51 14/01057/PPP Links
Policies and guidance for SDP, SDP06, SDP07, LPC, CITD1, CITD2, CITD3,
this application CITD4, CITD5, CITD6, CITD8, CITE3, CITE7, CITE8, CITE9, CITE10, CITE11, CITE12, CITE15, CITE16, CITE18, CITH1, CITH2, CITH3, CITH4, CITH7, CITCO2, CITT1, CITT2, CITT4, CITT5, CITT6, CITI6, LDPP, PLDE07, PLEV10, PLEV11, PLT08, NSG, NSDCAH, NSGCDF, NSOSS, NSGCGB, NSGD02,
Development Management Sub-Committee – Page 2 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Report
Application for Planning Permission in Principle 14/01057/PPP At Land 447 Metres Northeast Of 545, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh Residential Development, Ancillary Uses and Associated Development.
Recommendations
1.1 It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.. Background
2.1 Site description
The site, covering approximately 27 hectares, is situated within the grounds of Edmonstone Estate within the southeast area of the city.
The estate is a non-inventory designed landscape on the Edmonstone ridge. It is bounded to the south by Old Dalkeith Road. To the east is the Wisp which forms the boundary with Midlothian. East of the Wisp is the settlement of Danderhall. To the north are open fields and to the west are fields adjacent to the BioQuarter.
Edmonstone House was demolished in the 1950s. However, the policy woodland, gate houses and perimeter walls, walled garden and ha-has, as well as ruins of the former stable block still remain.
The land is located with the Green Belt and is within a Local Nature Conservation Site. Part of the site is designated as an open space proposal in the adopted local plan. These designations are included in the Proposed Local Development Plan which also identifies the site as a being within a candidate Special Landscape Area.
The trees within the estate are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) confirmed in July 2008 (reference No.1542008).
The east gates and lodge are category B listed (reference 49519, listed 7 October 2003). The south gates and lodge are also category B listed (ref 49518, listed 7 October 2003).
An enclosure lies to the north of the site and is a scheduled ancient monument.
Access is currently taken from the Wisp and Old Dalkeith Road.
Development Management Sub-Committee – Page 3 of 51 14/01057/PPP
2.2 Site History
Relevant applications within the area:
14 February 2008 - outline planning permission for an 80 bed private hospital on the site of the former house, granted subject to a legal agreement to secure the reinstatement of the designed landscape including use of the policies as a country park and transport contributions (reference 04/03551/OUT).
27 July 2010 - outline planning permission for a residential care village on the field to the south of the hospital site (and south and west of this application site), granted subject to a legal agreement to secure a landscape strategy and transport contributions (reference 08/00934/OUT).
27 July 2010 - outline planning permission for the erection of a care home in the walled garden (to the west of this site), granted subject to a legal agreement to secure a landscape strategy and transport contributions (reference 08/00936/OUT).
6 December 2011 - Proposal of Application Notice for residential development of two storey houses with associated roads and landscaping on land to the west of the site (and access to the north) (reference 11/03928/PAN).
8 November 2011 - full planning permission granted to form access road at the north of the site to serve private hospital, care home, care village (reference 11/02143/FUL).
11 November 2011 - listed building consent granted to relocate existing stone gate posts at the East Lodge (reference 11/02145/LBC).
6 June 2012 - section 42 application to extend the outline hospital consent (04/03551/OUT) for a further 3 years, approved subject to a legal agreement to deliver the landscape restoration and remaining transport matters in accordance with the original hospital consent The legal agreement has not been signed (reference 12/00764/FUL).
11 October 2012 - planning permission for residential development with associated roads and landscaping refused on land largely to the west of the site in the walled garden and eight acre field. The decision to refuse the application was appealed to the Scottish Ministers. The appeal was allowed, subject to a legal agreement, and a decision notice was issued on 20 September 2013 (reference 12/01624/FUL).
3 April 2013 - Proposal of Application Notice submitted covering a wider site for residential development and ancillary uses and formation of community parkland (reference 13/00928/PAN).
5 November 2013 - Proposal of Application Notice submitted for an amendment to existing consent 12/01624/FUL for residential development to amend housing mix on land largely to the west of the site (reference 13/04630/PAN).
18 December 2013 - application submitted on the same site for a cemetery (including provision for woodland burials), memorial garden, chapel of rest and associated development (reference 13/05235/PPP).
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 4 of 51 14/01057/PPP
23 December 2013 - application submitted on the same site for a cemetery, crematorium, memorial garden, chapel of rest and associated development (reference 13/05302/PPP).
15 April 2014 - listed building consent granted to alter and renovate derelict listed south lodge (545 Old Dalkeith Road) to form single dwellinghouse, with associated access and landscaping (reference 14/00695/LBC).
24 April 2014 - application granted for renovations and alterations to the listed south lodge (545 Old Dalkeith Road) to form single dwellinghouse with associated accesses and landscaping (reference 14/00694/FUL).
11 June 2014 - application to amend existing consent 12/01624/FUL (residential development) to revise housing mix and elevations 'minded to grant' (reference 14/00578/FUL).
25 June 2014 - planning permission 'minded to grant' for ground stabilisation works (reference 14/01166/FUL). Main report
3.1 Description Of The Proposal
The proposal is for planning permission in principle for residential development. It is accompanied by illustrative plans to show how the site could accommodate development. Two potential densities have been provided, one for 173 units and the other for 368 units.
The illustrative plans are necessary to enable the likely significant impacts of the proposed development to be identified for the purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
The two layouts broadly cover the same area within the site and both have been divided into four main areas.
The Design and Access statement for the lower density proposal indicates that the housing mix will include a number of large four and five bedroom family homes, whilst the indicative layout shows potential locations for flatted properties. The higher density proposal indicates a broad range of accommodation from two and three bedroom terraces to five bedroom detached houses. Twenty-five percent of the new homes will be affordable. Parking will be provided in accordance with the Council's requirements.
Each house is provided with an element of private garden space. The proposal contains various sizes of open space which will be publically accessible. Equipped play areas of varying sizes are provided throughout the development for various ages. It is also proposed that tree, shrub and hedge planting would be provided throughout the site to further enhance the development and offer increased opportunities for biodiversity.
Access to the site would be taken from two points on The Wisp. The first is from the existing approved access road via the East Lodge Gate in the northeast corner of the
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 5 of 51 14/01057/PPP site. This is currently under construction. The second access is located further south towards the junction of The Wisp with Old Dalkeith Road. This is a completely new vehicular access.
Within the development a network of internal roads would link different parts of the site. A primary route would provide access to all development 'plots'. Secondary lanes and streets would then provide access to individual properties within these plots.
The development would include a network of footpaths, suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists, which would connect the new residential areas within the site to each other and to the existing network of footpaths within the wider Edmonstone Estate and surrounding area. Public access to the woodland would also be strengthened by the inclusion of new informal paths within and around the new neighbourhood.
In addition to physical design measures to promote walking and cycling, it is proposed that a travel pack would be provided to each new resident to promote sustainable and healthy transport choices. This would include walking and cycling maps of the area, public transport timetables and information on 'active travel' and its associated health benefits.
It is proposed that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) would be used with two levels of surface water treatment for the roads and parking and on level for the buildings. The use of swales and filter trenches are proposed and subsequently an element of attenuation of surface water runoff. A SUDs basin to serve the new houses would be located south of the access road in the north of the site.
The Environmental Statement (ES) contains chapters on socio-economics, transportation and access, noise and vibration, air quality, ecology, archaeology and cultural heritage, ground conditions and water resources and cumulative effects. Mitigation is also suggested when deemed necessary.
Aside from the ES, the following documents have been submitted in support of the application and are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services:
• Pre-application Consultation Report • Planning Statement • Transport Assessment • Education Report • Design and Access Statements (173 and 368 units) • Drainage Statements (173 and 368 units) • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (173 and 368 units) • Landscape Appraisal and Design Statement • Site Investigation Report • Report on Health and Safety Considerations Relating to Shallow Mineworkings. • Hydrogeological Risk Assessment incorporating Water Features Survey • Completion Report for Consolidation of Abandoned Mineworkings and Bell Pits for the Wisp Link Access Road.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 6 of 51 14/01057/PPP
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, the Committee needs to consider whether: a) the principle of residential development is supported; b) there is an effective five year housing land supply; c) this is an effective housing site; d) the development will have an adverse impact on the historic landscape; e) the development will have any adverse impact on the setting of any scheduled ancient monuments, inventory sites, listed buildings or archaeological remains; f) the scale, design and materials of the proposed development is acceptable; g) the proposal will affect local biodiversity; h) the proposal will raise drainage, flooding, ground stability or contamination issues; i) the proposal will have any transport or road safety implications; j) the proposal will be detrimental to the amenity of neighbours or future occupiers; k) the proposal will meet sustainability criteria; l) the proposal will have any equalities or human rights impacts; and m) the comments raised by third parties have been addressed. a) Principle
Strategic Development Plan (SDP):
The site lies within South East Edinburgh which the SDP identifies as one of the city's four Strategic Development Areas (SDAs). Although these areas are a focus for strategic development, the SDA designation does not constitute a blanket statement of acceptability of development within the area. Importantly, the SDP requires the definition in the Local Development Plan (LDP) of a green belt around Edinburgh.
The SDP confirms that the scale of any additional housing allocations will be determined through LDPs following the preparation of SESplan supplementary guidance, taking into account environmental and infrastructure constraints. The SDP requires the definition in LDPs of a green belt around Edinburgh for a number of stated purposes. Several areas of significance to the Edinburgh Green Belt lie within the South East Edinburgh Strategic Development Area and SDP Policy 1A requires LDPs to take account of such environmental constraints.
7DP Policy 7 'Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply' supports greenfield housing development on sites within or outwith strategic development areas to maintain a five year effective land supply, subject to; a) the development being in character with the settlement or local area b) the development not undermining green belt objectives
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 7 of 51 14/01057/PPP and c) any additional infrastructure required by the development is committed or to be funded by the developer.
This site does not meet theses criteria for the reasons given below:
If developed, the site would be peripheral to the existing urban area at Ferniehill, separated by the A7 and the gap in the ridgeline. Additionally, it would be visually separated from the consented development within the Eight Acre Field by the wooded ridge of Edmonstone. This forms a strong visual and physical feature on the top of the ridge line and together with the open parkland to the south maintains the separate identities of Edinburgh and Danderhall.
The development is not in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area and contrary to criterion a).
In terms of criterion b) the site is within the green belt in the Edinburgh City Local Plan and continues to be included in the green belt in the Second Proposed LDP. As such, the proposal does not direct development to the most appropriate locations or support regeneration and is contrary to this green belt objective.
The application site sits at the eastern end of a prominent ridgeline spanning north eastwards across the southern edge of the city, from Burdiehouse in the south west. Development of the site's open parkland would impact on the site's designed landscape character. The site is prominent in views from the A7, where the additional height of development would be conspicuous on the skyline.
The site has a key role as part of an existing strategic green network which extends from Holyrood Park to the wider landscape of Midlothian and is identified as part of a wider open space proposal OSR 4 (South East Wedge Parkland) in the ECLP. This is carried through to the Second Proposed Local Development Plan as proposal GS4. In forming part of the city's green network as shown in map 3 of the Council's Open Space Strategy, the site contributes to the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN), a national development within NPF3.
This is part of the Central Scotland Green Network, a national development within the NPF 3. It is identified as a key green network action in the Council's Open Space Strategy to create a strategic network of connected open spaces.
Scottish Natural Heritage is supportive of the Council's open space proposal, the aims of the Open Space Strategy and the presumption against development on the site.
The applicant holds that the function of the Edmonstone Estate as a strategic link in the CSGN is not compromised by the proposed development and indeed will enable greater numbers of the public to enjoy the benefits of the site. Areas of open space are provided within the site layouts provided with the application, with a central area running north south and further areas linking into it. However, the open space proposal would be significantly compromised by the loss of a large area of its designation to housing development. The existing green network would be severed by housing development and the parkland would not be delivered as envisaged.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 8 of 51 14/01057/PPP
In conclusion, the proposal would affect the landscape setting of the city and undermine the strategic green network. The proposal would undermine green belt objectives by breaking the continuity of the Green Belt and lead to coalescence between Edinburgh and Danderhall. The Proposal is contrary to SDP Policy 7 part a) as the development will not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area criteria and part b) as the development will undermine green belt objectives. Part c) of SDP Policy is considered in relation to additional infrastructure in section c) Effectiveness of the Site.
SDP Policy 12 'Green Belts' continues to require the relevant LDPs to define and maintain a green belt around Edinburgh. Paragraph 129 of the Strategic Development Plan further states that in preparing Local Development Plans, authorities should seek to minimise the loss of land from the Green Belt and effort should be made to minimise the impact on Green Belt objectives and secure long term boundaries.
Additionally, criterion a) of SDP Policy 12 requires LDPs to maintain the identity and character of Edinburgh and their neighbouring towns and prevent coalescence, unless otherwise justified by the Local Development Plan settlement strategy.
The proposal would lead to coalescence between Edinburgh and Danderhall which is not planned or justified as part of the Local Development Plan settlement strategy and as such the proposal is contrary to policy 12 of the SDP.
Edinburgh City Local Plan:
The proposal is within the Edinburgh Green Belt as identified in the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP).
ECLP Policy Env 10 Green Belt criterion a) states that development in the green belt will not be permitted unless necessary for the purposes of agriculture, woodland and forestry, horticulture or for a countryside recreational use compatible with an agricultural or natural setting.
The proposed housing development is a non-conforming use within the green belt and as such is contrary to Policy Env 10 Green Belt of the ECLP. Additionally, the proposal is not an allocated housing site or located within the urban area and as such is contrary to policy ECLP Hou 1 Housing Development.
The green belt provides separation between Edinburgh's urban area and Danderhall in Midlothian to prevent coalescence of the built up areas. This is illustrated in the spatial strategy diagram on page 14 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
In addition to the green belt designation, the site is identified as part of a wider open space proposal OSR 4 (South East Wedge Parkland) in the Edinburgh City Local Plan. This green space forms part of the city's green network as per map 3 of the Open Space Strategy and in turn contributes to this part of the Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN), a national development within National Planning Framework 3 (NPF 3).
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 9 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Proposed Local Development Plan:
The first Proposed LDP was published in March 2013 and included the site within the green belt. The representation period for the first LDP Proposed Plan ran from 1st May - 14th June 2013. During this time, representations were received from over 2200 individuals and organisations, two of which are directly relevant to this application. One representation from a neighbouring authority supports the retention of the site within the green belt and as an open space proposal. The other representation is from the applicant proposing a housing development on the grounds of the site being located within the South East Strategic Development Area and it being an effective housing site.
The Second Proposed LDP was approved by Committee in June 2014. The plan continues to include the site within the green belt. Policy Env 10 only permits new development for the purposes of agriculture etc or where a countryside location is essential. The proposal is contrary to this policy and is also contrary to Policy Hou 1 which indicates where housing development will be supported.
The application site was assessed in the Environmental Report, Second Revision for the LDP as an available greenfield site located within South East Edinburgh. The housing site assessment criteria fully reflect the criterion within SDP Policy 7. The site was not found to be an appropriate housing site. A number of green belt releases are identified in the Proposed LDP. The spatial strategy diagram on page 8 and the South East Edinburgh overview map on page 70 of the LDP demonstrate the site's importance as a key strategic part of the green belt and green network which extends from Holyrood Park to the wider landscape of Midlothian. There is also clear green belt separation between Edinburgh and The Wisp (which forms both the local authority boundary line and the western boundary of Danderhall). In addition, the site falls within a proposed Special Landscape Area in the Proposed LDP, which aims to protect Edinburgh's unique and diverse landscape character and scenic value.
In summary, taking together the spatial strategy in the adopted ECLP and the spatial strategies in the approved SESplan and Second Proposed LDP, the proposed development is a significant departure from the vision for the development of the city and as such there is no support in principle for housing in this location.
Consequently, development in this area would need to be justified as a significant departure from the development plan due to its green belt location and its impact on the aims of the Central Scotland Green Network, which is identified as a national development in National Planning Framework 3. b) 5 Year Effective Housing Land Supply
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) paragraph 52 states that where a proposal would not normally be consistent with Green Belt policy, it may still be considered appropriate either as a national priority or to meet an established need if no other suitable site is available.
SPP also requires a supply of effective housing land for at least five years to be maintained at all times.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 10 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The applicant submitted a supporting statement to accompany this application which states that the Council is failing to provide a five year effective land supply as required by SPP and that there is a shortfall in the five year effective land supply of 6,173 units. The applicant argues that there is sufficient justification to grant planning permission for housing at this location to deliver new housing in the short term.
SDP Policy 7 requires a five year effective land supply to be maintained. Sites may be allocated in local development plans or by granting planning permission to maintain a five year effective land supply, subject to certain criteria. As identified in section a) this site does not meet these criteria.
The SESPlan Housing Land Supplementary Guidance (SG) was finalised in May 2014 and sets housing land requirements for each of the six Council areas as required by SDP Policy 5 Housing Land. The finalised SG sets a housing land requirement for the council area of 29,510 homes. It provides an indication of what this may mean in terms of new allocations within and outwith Strategic Development Areas. However, this can only be determined in detail through the LDP process.
Based on the finalised SESplan Supplementary Guidance and latest Housing Land Audit (2013), the total effective housing land supply for Edinburgh is 71.1% or just over 3 and a half years supply. The shortfall in the current land supply equates to 3,127 units.
Whilst there is currently a shortfall in the five year effective land supply, the Second Proposed LDP identifies further greenfield housing sites to meet the SDP housing requirements. The Council is committed to bringing forward additional housing sites as quickly as possible in a plan-led manner. These new sites will augment the land supply figures and will feed into future versions of the Housing Land Audit. c) Effectiveness of the Site
Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2010: Affordable Housing and Housing Land Supply sets out the basis for defining an effective site. It includes: ownership; physical (free from constraints related to slope, aspect, flood risk, ground stability or access); contamination; deficit funding; marketability; infrastructure; and land use. The issues relating to these criteria are considered below:
Physical - The Environmental Statement and other submitted reports highlight that the site suffers from ground stability issues due to the past mining activities. Stabilisation of mineworkings via drilling and grouting would be undertaken and mine entries would be grouted and/or capped prior to the development of the site. A separate application has been submitted to deal specifically with the ground conditions due to the landowners concern in relation to health and safety considerations. The ground stabilisation application (application reference 14/01166/FUL) is 'minded to grant' subject to a legal agreement in relation to an Estate Management Strategy.
It is accepted that there are technical solutions to stabilise the land for housing development, though the planning statement estimates the cost of the work at £7.5 million.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 11 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Marketability - The supporting statement states that new housing development will be on site within two years of planning permission in principle being granted. Taking into account the ground stabilisation works, the need for an updated Estate Management Strategy as well as a detailed planning application, the timescales appear optimistic as other sites have taken longer for development on the ground to take place, but this may be achievable.
Infrastructure - Aside from the ground remediation costs mentioned above, there is the requirement for 25% affordable housing and transport improvements, including junction alterations, at the Wisp.
Children and Families has also commented that based on the new LDP action programme process that:
Option 1 for 173 houses would require non-denominational primary and secondary contribution £1,660,400.76 and RC primary contributions of £94,708.
Option 2 for 368 houses would require non-denominational primary and secondary contribution £3,397,094.99 and RC primary contributions of £171,030.
Land use - Housing is not the preferred use of the land in planning terms. The site is located within the green belt, designated as part of an open space proposal, located within a non-inventory designed landscape and also forms part of a special landscape area. Separate applications for the same site boundary for a crematorium and cemetery and associated development were submitted (planning applications 13/05302/PPP and 13/05235/PPP) in December 2013. Due to the submission of applications for an alternative uses, there is some uncertainty as to the developer's intentions and whether this site would contribute to the five year housing land supply.
The applicant was requested to provide an open book assessment and the response includes limited information and a number of assumptions which have not been justified. The open book assessment has failed to demonstrate that the site is effective or deliverable. Consequently, it is also unclear if the costs of additional infrastructure (SDP Policy 7 part c) can be met by the developer. d) Historic Landscape
The Environmental Statement accompanying the application describes the site as follows:
'The site has a historic, semi-rural character. The woodland and parkland trees contribute to the sense of naturalness. Although the proposal is seeking to screen the development from public view with structure planting, the proposal will result in the urbanisation of this designed landscape.'
The submitted landscape appraisal acknowledges that the estate is of local and regional value and of some historical and arboricultural interest. The document also indicates that its greatest value is as a potential recreational resource.
In terms of quality, the site is identified as a being of local importance through the Council's Survey of Gardens and Designed Landscapes (non-inventory). The survey
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 12 of 51 14/01057/PPP notes it as being a traditional estate landscape of high value. It also states 'The policy woodlands and parkland and other planted features are good quality and are important in the landscape'.
The site is not recorded in the Inventory of Gardens and Landscapes which ECLP Policy Env 7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes relates to. However, the proposed LDP Policy Env 7 Historic Gardens and Designed Landscape indicates that outwith inventory sites, adverse effects on historic landscape features should be minimised. Restoration of historic landscape features is encouraged.
The site is also a Special Landscape Area as identified in the Second Proposed LDP. This states 'Despite demolition of Edmonstone House in the 1950s, the character and cultural value is sustained by the landscape structure of boundary walling, avenue planting and mature specimen trees within the surrounding parkland'.
SNH has provided comments on the proposal. It notes that a reduced density and pulling development away from some of the estate's features is an improvement over the higher density option. However, its earlier comments in relation to a previous withdrawn scheme still apply. SNH considers that both densities put forward, by virtue of their scale and location within the landscape, will have detrimental impacts on the character and composition of the designed landscape, eroding the generally open and distinctive character of the parkland. The alteration to the spatial qualities of the parkland and change to its overall character is a key issue for consideration.
The key overall landscape characteristic of the site that will be lost due to the housing development is the open, rural parkland. This open rural parkland is an intrinsic component of the historic landscape, as are the open views from the ha-ha. The new character to be developed will be more enclosed and urban.
Another important component of the character is the mature parkland trees in their open parkland setting which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. The parkland trees are being brought into the development and will lose their setting and amenity value. Due to the extensive remediation work there is likely to be some tree loss despite tree protection measures that would be put into place.
The applicant states that many of the key features of the historic landscape no longer exist in their original form, including Edmonstone House (which was demolished in the 1950s), the walled garden, the stables and the dovecot. The applicant puts forward that landscape has evolved over time and the purpose of the Estate Management Strategy is not to re-create the former 18th century landscape. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has already undertaken works to restore the ha-ha within the site and the boundary walls.
The City Archaeologist objected to the proposal due to the adverse impact it would have on the setting of the historic landscape. It was determined that the proposals would destroy the surviving open character and significant views which are core to its 17th/18th century design and understanding.
The introduction of housing will damage and detract from the overall character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area and is contrary to Policy Env 11 of the Proposed LDP.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 13 of 51 14/01057/PPP
In terms of visual impacts the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) (for both densities) show that the development will be visible from a number of viewpoints. These have varying sensitivity, magnitude and significance. The LVIA shows the same information for both densities put forward. The LVIA indicates that the development will have no significant landscape or visual impact from the much wider view points.
The development will be visible from view points from the north of the site, such as Craigmillar Castle and Hawkhill Wood. This shows the development having some adverse impact by intruding into the ridge line at the north of the site where the trees are less prominent. To a certain degree these views are less critical due to the proposed development that will take place in the foreground at the BioQuarter and on the Edmonstone Estate itself.
The most significant and adverse impacts are from a range of close viewpoints around Old Dalkeith Road, the Wisp (especially the junction of the two roads) and the Drum.
The visual impact from the Drum Inventory landscape is adverse as it alters the character of the view from rural to urban. Viewpoint 6 shows a moderate adverse impact in terms of significance. The LVIA states that this will be seen by relatively few people compared to other viewpoints and the visual impact could be reduced through further perimeter planting. Although planting may reduce the visual impacts over time, together with the proposed built development and ancillary infrastructure, it will also fundamentally change the character of the area.
Viewpoint 7 from Old Dalkeith Road may benefit from additional screening, however Viewpoint 8 from the Junction of the A7 and the Wisp indicates that the break in development between Midlothian and Edinburgh will be lost. The perception of an open, rural landscape maintains the separate identity of each settlement.
The applicant considers the issue of coalescence with Danderhall and concludes that the western edge of Danderhall is defined by a belt of mixed woodland on the east of the Wisp, whilst perimeter planting on the Edmonstone Estate would create a robust woodland edge preventing any impression of visual coalescence.
The planting on the eastern side of the Wisp is not continuous and viewpoints 9 and 10 (along the Wisp) clearly show that the rural edge of the city will be altered to an urban edge resulting in coalescence and the loss of the appreciation of the historic landscape.
As such the proposal is contrary to ECLP Policy Des 8 Urban Edge Development which only permits development on sites at the Green Belt boundary where it conserves and enhances the landscape setting and special character of the city. It is also the views out from the site which will be fundamentally altered by the scale of development proposed.
The applicant argues that by developing on the green field land, the development could be successfully integrated into the landscape with minimal visual intrusion and appropriate impacts upon the setting and identity of existing settlements. However, the proposals will fundamentally alter the character of the area and the housing
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 14 of 51 14/01057/PPP development would be at odds with the current parkland character and will be detrimental to the designed landscape.
If consent is granted an updated Estate Management Strategy would be required to set out how the landscape features of the site would be conserved and improved. e) Listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Inventory sites and Archaeology
There are a number of historic features within and around the site that need to be considered. These have been considered in the Environmental Statement and the aforementioned landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA).
Craigmillar Castle and gardens is a scheduled ancient monument located approximately 1500m to the north-west of the site which consists of the castle and its surrounding designed landscape (which is also an inventory garden and designed landscape). The schedule states that it is arguably the best example of a medieval castle surviving in Scotland. The castle and dovecot site are A listed (listed 14/12/1970, ref 28016). The adjacent dairy is also B listed (listed 15/07/1983, ref 28017).
The (LVIA) provided shows minor adverse impact on these assets, though this is not of significant concern.
A scheduled ancient monument lies to the north of the site. This comprises the remains of a settlement of prehistoric date represented by cropmarks. It is currently screened by existing planting and the proposed use will have limited impact on the setting of this monument.
Historic Scotland does not raise any concerns in relation to the proposed development and any impact on these features.
To the west of the site is the A listed Drum (listed 14/07/1966, ref 28052), which is a Palladian mansion with pavilion. This is some 500 metres away from the site and has woodland to the north of it which limits the views to the application site. The open views from Drum House to the south and southeast which form a key element in the setting of the house and are not impacted on by this proposal. The Drum estate is an Inventory site and the impact of the development has been considered in the previous section.
Within the application site are the two B listed lodges and gates at the eastern and southern parts of the site.
The east lodge is occupied and in a reasonable condition. A previous application was granted for a new access road, parking and the relocation of the gate posts adjacent to the building. Listed building consent was also granted to relocate the existing gate posts.
The outlook of the listed building will be altered by the proposed development, although existing mature planting shields the house to some degree and the housing is proposed to be set away from the lodge. The impact will depend on the final design and level of planting proposed but any impact is likely to be limited. The proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the building or its setting.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 15 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The south lodge is derelict. Planning permission and listed building consent have been granted for renovations and alterations to form a single dwellinghouse. The lodge sits below the wider area of where the new housing is proposed. The development would have limited impact on this lodge.
To the south of the site is the B listed Drumbank with stables, cottages (outbuildings) and walled garden (listed 15/04/1996 ref 28059). The old smithy to the east of this is C listed (listed 15/04/1996, ref 43264). The A7 road cuts through the area in a dip below the application site and the raised area at the Drum. There is some mature planting adjacent to the listed structures and the site will be visible, though the application site is not the main outlook of these properties. The impact of the proposal will be limited and will not be detrimental to the listed structures.
Historic Scotland has considered the proposals and noted the potential impacts but has no objection to the development. The proposal would not have a significant impact on these historic assets.
Buried Archaeology:
Previous work and reports submitted demonstrate that the application site contains a wide range of archaeological remains. The works would have a significant adverse affect upon any buried remains, including potentially nationally important pre-industrial mine workings (i.e. the bell pits). Accordingly, the City Archaeologist recommends an integrated programme of archaeological works as part of any development. This can be secured by way of a condition. f) Design
As noted above the development would fundamentally alter the character of the area and landscape setting of the city. Therefore it is the wider landscape issues that cause most concern in terms of design.
The proposal is in PPP form and therefore the detailed design and layout would need to be resolved through subsequent detailed applications. Both submitted layouts provided have a similar land take regardless of the density being proposed. The proposals are generally inward looking and the indicative orientation of the units does not positively interact with some of the surrounding wooded areas and open space.
The submitted design statements indicate that the buildings should adopt traditional forms, proportions and roof pitches reflecting a basic tradition of building in this part of Scotland. Materials are initially rendered walls, brick detailing, natural slate roofs and timber windows. It is indicated that the design would be similar to the granted development at the nearby eight acre field.
A detailed breakdown of housing mix has not been provided, but the submitted information indicates that a number of larger dwellings would be provided, which, depending on the final detail, would meet the expectations of at least 20% being three bedrooms or above.
Police Scotland has commented that the developer should consider meeting the requirements of secure by design and that once a decision has been made with
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 16 of 51 14/01057/PPP regards the layout and number of units, the developer should consider setting up a meeting with a police Architectural Liaison Officer.
The proposal is to establish the principle of residential development on the site. If granted, further details would come forward as approval of matters specified in conditions submissions. g) Biodiversity
The site is located within a Local Biodiversity Site and would result in the loss of a locally designated area. Development of the site has potential for an adverse impact on ecology. Comprehensive surveys have been undertaken for protected species on or using the site.
No evidence was found of badgers or otters using the site. No further information or action is required in relation to these species.
Single pipistrelle bat roosts have been identified in some of the trees on site. These trees are in a woodland strip close to an access track at the western area of the site. This part of the site is within an area where no construction works are proposed and therefore there are no concerns over the welfare of bats.
It is considered that the open land where the housing is proposed (rather than the wooded core of the estate) has limited botanical value and the proposal would not result in significant ecological harm.
Giant hogweed has been identified within the site and an informative in relation to its safe removal is recommended.
SNH has assessed the supporting information and is satisfied with the results of the survey work submitted. This is on the basis that the development is carried out with the suggested mitigation and recommendations in the Ecology sections of the Environmental Statement, including the production of an Environmental Management Plan, installation of bat boxes, covering of trenches or use of ramps to enable wild animals to escape, vegetation clearance to be outwith the bird breeding season and an Estate Management Strategy in place for long term management. These would need to be secured either through conditions and further detailed submissions or a legal agreement.
A tree survey has been provided. Within the open parkland area, 53 individual trees were recorded. The condition of the trees in this area is generally good:
• 36 x A - High Quality and value; trees whose retention is most desirable • 7 x B - Moderate quality and value; trees where retention is desirable • 3 x C - Low quality and value; trees which could be retained if possible • 7 x R - Unsuitable for retention; trees which should be removed.
A number of trees are also present around the perimeter of the site, which have been grouped together and classed as B. This is young woodland planting that is starting to be established and certain elements would be felled.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 17 of 51 14/01057/PPP
A tree protection plan has been provided. Protective fencing in line with British Standards is to be used and is to be five metres from the canopy edge. The limited number of trees to be removed due to their condition, such as structural defects or disease, is acceptable. A condition to ensure that tree protection is undertaken would be required. However, the main issue is the urbanisation of the area.
With appropriate controls in place the site can be developed without a detrimental impact on biodiversity. h) Drainage, flooding, ground stability and contamination
A number of documents have been submitted in support of the application covering ground conditions and potential issues.
Drainage and Flooding:
Drainage Strategies covering both proposed densities have been provided. A SUDS basin is proposed at a low point in the northwest of the site with the use of filter trenches and swales also promoted.
SEPA note that from the limited information submitted the drainage proposals appear to be acceptable in principle. Likewise SEPA has no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds.
SEPA in responding to the application originally raised concerns due to the lack of information on the potential impact on ground water of the grouting works. A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment incorporating Water Features Survey was subsequently submitted. On review of this information SEPA is content that it satisfies the requirements to reduce the potential risk to groundwater.
Scottish Water has no objection to the planning application.
Further information, including details of maintenance, would be required at the more detailed stage if the application is granted.
Ground Stability:
The site is undermined with several coal seams running north south. Historical records, site investigations, aerial photography, archaeological investigations and anecdotal information confirm that the site is susceptible to potential mining instability due to the shallow abandoned mine workings and bell pits. The Coal Authority confirms that the site is within the defined Development High Risk Area.
A number of reports have been submitted in relation to ground stability. A report has been submitted on Health and Safety Considerations and raises significant safety concerns surrounding access to the land by members of the public.
Two mine shafts on the site are recorded by the Coal Authority and there is the potential for further abandoned mine workings across the site. Recent construction for an access road found six bell pits. Bell pits often take the form of surface excavations which were continued to a few metres depth, then opened out laterally within the coal
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 18 of 51 14/01057/PPP seem. They were often undertaken by locals and not recorded. As such there is the high potential for numerous bell pits across the site.
The land was previously under the lease of the Council but this has been relinquished. The applicant also points out that when the Council was leasing the land it issued a notice to residents in the area highlighting the risks and advising that the land was closed off to the public. Fences and warning signs are in place on the site but this has not deterred people from accessing it.
The Coal Authority has considered the submitted information and concludes that the recommendations made in the submitted reports for ground stabilisation (in the form of drilling, grouting and capping) are appropriate. A condition is recommended to ensure that these works are carried out prior to the commencement of development.
A separate application to deal specifically with the ground stabilisation works on the site was reported to the Development Management Sub-Committee on 25 June 2014 and is currently minded to grant pending the signing of a legal agreement. Nonetheless, given that this is a separate planning application conditions would be required to ensure that if consent is granted the required ground works are completed.
Contamination:
Environmental Assessment has noted that previous intrusive investigations have recorded localised contamination in the ground in the north eastern corner of the site. Therefore, a condition is recommended to that effect which will require the developer to ensure that the site is made suitable for the proposed end use.
In summary adequate information has been provided to demonstrate that the site can be stabilised subject to conditions. A condition would also be required to ensure that there are no contamination issues and further drainage details. i) Transport Issues
Traffic Implications:
The site is bounded to the east by the Wisp and to the south by Old Dalkeith Road (A7). Vehicular access is proposed by way of two T-junctions onto The Wisp. The northern access is currently under construction as part of a previous permission. The proposed southern access would be through a break in the existing wall and there is sufficient room to maintain adequate sightlines. It is expected that parking levels will be in line with the Council's standards and full details would be required at a detailed stage.
A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted in support of the application. This is based on a previous application with a proposed upper limit of 390 dwellings. In terms of traffic impact, the TA projects the predicted traffic levels from the development. As a consequence of this it tests the existing Old Dalkeith Road / The Wisp signalised junction. It notes that the junction is predicted to be over capacity following years of growth within the area regardless of this development, but the proposal will have an impact on the operation of this junction. As such, significant infrastructure improvement
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 19 of 51 14/01057/PPP is required and an indicative layout showing improvements to the junction has been provided.
Transport has raised no objections to the application subject to the implementation of the junction improvements, footway links, cycle track links and contributions to progress suitable traffic orders and speed limit implementations. Transport also notes that the traffic impacts of the proposed development will be greatest on the Wisp and Old Dalkeith Road, which lie in Midlothian Council's area.
Midlothian Council has provided a late response to the proposal setting out concerns that the submitted TA did not take into account the development at Shawfair. They have requested that if the Council intends to grant permission there is a need to clarify the scale of development proposed, that the TA is updated to take into account Shawfair, a scheme of improvements for Old Dalkeith Road and The Wisp needs to be prepared and agreed and also a contribution to improvements at Sheriffhall roundabout would be required.
Additionally, it would not be reasonable to condition a Transport Assessment to be updated as part of any planning permission.
A contribution to Sheriffhall has not been set out or justified by Midlothian Council. Transport Scotland is preparing a cross boundary cumulative transport appraisal for SESplan. This will set out any proposed contributions, including the requirements to upgrade Sheriffhall roundabout. Until this work is completed there is no policy justification for such contribution.
Transport Scotland, in considering the Transport chapter within the Environmental Statement, comment that although the proposed development is an intensification of the use of this site the increase in traffic on the trunk road is such that the proposed development is likely to cause minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network.
Therefore, the traffic impacts of the proposal could be mitigated, subject to traffic improvements which would be secured through a legal agreement.
Accessibility:
Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Tra 1 Location of Major Development indicates when assessing non-central sites regard should be given to the accessibility of the site by modes other than the car.
There is currently a network of informal pathways through the site, though due to current ground conditions, signs and warnings are up limiting public access. The Core Path Plan shows route CEC4 running adjacent to the site with future potential shown through the site linking into the rest of the proposed south-east wedge parkland. The proposed residential development would link into the nearby paths. Although it would change the character of the area it would enable pedestrian access.
There is an existing local centre at Moredun Park Road, approximately 1200m distant when measured from a central part of the site, and there is a local shop at Danderhall some 900m way. This is in line with the PAN 75: Planning for Transport threshold of 1600m for accessibility to local services by walking.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 20 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Lothian bus routes 7, 33 and 49 offer frequent services into the city centre and are available from bus stops on Old Dalkeith Road in close proximity to the site. The Transport Assessment also states that there are further services operated by Edinburgh Coach Lines along the Wisp and within Danderhall.
The TA also sets out proposals for a travel pack to make new residents aware of travel opportunities within the area and to help embed sustainable travel modes. The provision of the travel pack would need to be secured through a legal agreement.
Overall the proposed access arrangements and transport implications have been considered.
If the application were granted a legal agreement would be required to secure transport improvements. j) Amenity
The Environmental Statement includes sections on noise and air quality. Noise and dust will be generated from construction activity and from ground works.
Noise:
Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce any adverse impact on nearby residential properties and the New Royal Infirmary. There is some potential for residual noise effects during ground breaking and earthworks arising close to residential property facing the construction works. However, these effects will be short-term and temporary in nature.
In terms of the impact of noise on any future occupiers further information at the detailed stage would be required to demonstrate how all bedrooms and living rooms would be protected against road and air traffic noise.
Air Quality:
The Environmental Statement predicts that during the construction stage and without mitigation measures in place, there is the potential for dust to have a moderate adverse impact on neighbouring properties between 20m and 100m from the site boundary and a minor adverse impact on buildings between 100m and 200m away.
The ES proposes mitigation measures to reduce the levels of dust and other particles emitting from the site. As such any nuisance will be short-term and no long-term effects on local air quality are predicted. Environmental Assessment has no objection to the scheme. The mitigation measures proposed will ensure there is no lasting adverse impact on residential amenity.
SEPA agree with the findings of the air quality modelling assessment and that the development is likely to have negligible impact on air quality. However, they also note that there is the likelihood of an increase in the number of journeys made by car. As such they encourage the use of electric car charging points to help to encourage the uptake of low carbon transport.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 21 of 51 14/01057/PPP
With a condition in relation to noise protection and informatives requiring construction mitigation and the installation of electric vehicle charging points the amenity of existing and future residents will not be adversely affected. Specific detail in respect of privacy, daylight/sunlight, and noise and amenity space would come forward at the detailed stage. k) Sustainability
The proposal is for planning permission in principle and are not at the detailed stage in terms of building design. Consequently a sustainability form has not been submitted. Sustainability measures will require further consideration if a detailed application comes forward. Should Committee be minded to grant, a condition is recommended to ensure sustainability measures are considered at the detailed design stage. l) Equalities and Rights Impacts
The application has been assessed for any potential impacts on equalities and human rights. Air quality and noise issues are largely short-lived matters during the construction stage that can be mitigated against through good working practices.
The proposal would lead to the loss of the existing open parkland area, though it would provide new housing, including 25% affordable which could aid in improving the standard of life.
In relation to equalities, the design statement indicates that development will be fully accessible to disabled people and that the houses will be designed to accommodate changes in lifestyle and mobility that can be anticipated over the lifetime of their occupants.
Equalities and human rights would be reconsidered at the approval of matters specified in conditions stage as more detailed plans come forward. m) Public Comments
One letter of representation was received and related to the suitability of the location for the inclusion of swift bricks in any detailed design. The site is an area that would be suitable for swift bricks and this could be factored into the detailed design. An informative could be placed on the consent if granted.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposal represents a significant departure from the development plan due to its green belt location and its impact on the aims of the Central Scotland Green Network which is identified as a national development in National Planning Framework 3. Housing is not an appropriate green belt use and is contrary to Policy Env 10 and Policy Hou 1 of the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan and Policy 7 and Policy 12 of SESPlan. The proposal is therefore also contrary to policies Env 10 Green Belt and Hou 1 of the Second Proposed LDP.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 22 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The proposal would lead to the physical and visual coalescence with Danderhall and undermine the landscape setting of the city contrary to SESPlan Policy 7 and ECLP Policy Des 8. The proposal would also undermine the landscape features contrary to ECLP Policy Env 11 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 7 and Env 11.
The proposed development is also contrary to the South East Wedge Parkland open space proposals, ECLP OSR 4 and LDP GS4.
As the application is for the principle of the development only, the merits of the proposed development in terms of its layout, design and amenity would be assessed at the detailed application stage. The proposal would not prejudice listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and buried archaeology. Provision would be made to enhance biodiversity within the site and adequate tree protection put in place. The proposal is acceptable in relation to the proposed ground stability works, though further information would be required in relation to drainage and transport matters can be resolved. This would all be subject to the use of relevant planning conditions and the provision of a legal agreement.
The Environmental Statement has been taken into consideration in reaching this conclusion.
There are no material considerations which justify a departure from the development plan.
In terms of procedure, as the proposal is a significant departure from the development plan and contrary to National Planning Framework 3 in terms of the Central Scotland Green Network, the application must be referred to Full Council for a decision.
It is recommended that this application be Refused for the reasons below.
3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives Conditions:-
Reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 12, Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 10 and Hou 1 as there are no compelling reasons to override the strong policy presumption against development in the Green Belt. The housing need is being met through the new Local Development Plan.
2. The proposal is contrary to SESPlan Policy 7 and Edinburgh City Local Plan Policies Des 8 and Env 11 and the Second Proposed LDP Policies Env 7 and Env 11 as the development would not be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area and would be detrimental to the character and composition of the local landscape.
3. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Open Space and Recreation Proposal OSR 4 South East Wedge Parkland and the Second Local Development Plan Greenspace Proposal GS4 South East Wedge Parkland as the
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 23 of 51 14/01057/PPP development would introduce housing into the area prejudicing the open space designation and the delivery of the strategic green network.
Financial impact
4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:
The application is subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact
5.1 Provided planning applications are determined in accordance with statutory legislation, the level of risk is low. Equalities impact
6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:
This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. The impacts are identified in the Assessment section of the main report. Sustainability impact
7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:
This application is not subject to the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement
8.1 Pre-Application Process
In accordance with the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, a Proposal of Application Notice (13/00928/PAN) covering a much larger site and a range of uses was submitted on 20 March 2013. Copies of the notice were also issued to:
• Craigmillar Community Council • Danderhall and District Community Council • Councillor Tom Buchannan • Councillor Bill Cook • Councillor Nick Cook • Councillor Norma Hart • Councillor Mike Bridgeman • Councillor Maureen Child • Councillor David Walker • Councillor Jim Bryant (Midlothian) • Councillor Margot Russell (Midlothian) • Councillor Alex Bennett (Midlothian) • Kenny MacAskill MSP • Sheila Gilmore MSP • Liberton and Gilmerton Neighbourhood Partnership • Portobello and Craigmillar Neighbourhood Partnership
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 24 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Three community consultation events were held in May 2013. Full details can be found in the Pre-Application Consultation report, which sets out the findings from the community consultation. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online services.
A pre-application report on the proposals was presented to the Committee on 1 May 2013. The Committee noted the key issues highlighted in the report.
8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments
The application and the Environmental Impact Assessment were advertised on 11 March 2014. One letter of representation was received. The letter requested the inclusion of swift bricks in any detailed scheme.
No representations have been received from the Community Council.
A full assessment of the representations can be found in the main report in the Assessment section. Background reading / external references
To view details of the application go to Planning and Building Standards online services
Statutory Development Plan Provision Strategic Development Plan (SESplan): The location of the green belt is shown in the SESplan Spatial Strategy. The green belt in this location separates the South East Edinburgh SDA from the Midlothian SDA that covers the A7/A68/Borders Rail Corridors.
Edinburgh City Local Plan: The land is within the Green Belt and is part of a Local Nature Conservation Site. The site is designated as Open Space Proposal: OSR 4 - South East Wedge Parkland which indicated that the land should be landscaped to provide multi-functional parkland, woodland and country paths with parallel developments in Midlothian.
Second Proposed Local Development Plan (2014): The land is within the Green Belt and a Local Nature
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 25 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Conservation Site. The site is also part of Greenspace Proposal: GS4 South East Wedge Parkland and retains the same aims as held within the ECLP. The site is also identified as being within a candidate Special Landscape Area.
Other: The Edmonstone Estate is identified as a historic garden and designed landscape of local landscape importance.
Craigmillar Urban Design Framework: This sets out a vision and principles for development of the Craigmillar area. Edmonstone is identified as providing landscape and natural and historical heritage context to the area alongside land for future open space proposals.
Finalised Edinburgh BioQuarter and South East Wedge Parkland Supplementary Guidance: This states that the Edmonstone Estate should: • conserve, enhance and maintain the surviving structure and landscape elements of Edmonstone and Niddrie Marischal. • keep updated and implement an Estate Management Plan.
Date registered 3 April 2014
Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-11,
Scheme 1
David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards
Contact: Kenneth Bowes, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 6724 Links - Policies
Relevant Policies:
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 26 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Relevant Policies of the Strategic Development Plan
SDP06 (Housing Land Flexibility) Policy 6 requires that a 5 year effective housing land supply is maintained. It allows the granting of planning permission for the earlier development of sites which are allocated for a later period in the LDP to maintain the land supply.
Policy 7 requires that a 5 year housing land supply is maintained. Sites within or outwith Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in LDPs or granted consent subject to the development; being in accord with the character of the settlement or area, not undermining green belt objectives and any additional infrastructure required is either committed or to be funded by the developer
Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
Policy Des 1 (Design Quality and Context) sets general criteria for assessing design quality and requires an overall design concept to be demonstrated.
Policy Des 2 (Co-ordinated Development) establishes a presumption against proposals which might compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the wider area.
Policy Des 3 (Development Design) sets criteria for assessing development design.
Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.
Policy Des 5 (External Spaces) sets criteria for assessing landscape design and external space elements of development.
Policy Des 6 (Sustainable Design & Construction) sets criteria for assessing the sustainable design and construction elements of development.
Policy Des 8 (Urban Edge Development) sets criteria for assessing development on sites at the Green Belt boundary.
Policy Env 3 (Listed Buildings - Setting) identifies the circumstances in which development within the curtilage or affecting the setting of a listed building will be permitted.
Policy Env 7 (Historic Gardens & Designed Landscapes) establishes a presumption against development that would be detrimental to Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes.
Policy Env 8 (Protection of Important Remains) establishes a presumption against development that would adversely affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument or archaeological remains of national importance.
Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 27 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Policy Env 10 (Green Belt) identifies the types of development that will be permitted in the Green Belt.
Policy Env 11 (Landscape Quality) establishes a presumption against development which would adversely affect important landscapes and landscape features.
Policy Env 12 (Trees) sets out tree protection requirements for new development.
Policy Env 15 (Sites of Local Importance) identifies the circumstances in which development likely to affect Sites of Local Importance will be permitted.
Policy Env 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.
Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.
Policy Hou 1 (Housing Development) supports housing on appropriate sites in the urban area, and on specific sites identified in the Plan.
Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires the provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments.
Policy Hou 3 (Private Open Space) sets out the requirements for the provision of private open space in housing development.
Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.
Policy Hou 7 (Affordable Housing) requires 25% affordable housing provision in residential development of twelve or more units.
Policy Com2 (School Contributions) sets the requirements for school contributions associated with new housing development.
Policy Tra 1 (Major Travel Generating Development) supports major travel generating development in the Central Area, and sets criteria for assessing major travel generating development elsewhere.
Policy Tra 2 (Planning Conditions and Agreements) requires, where appropriate, transport related conditions and/or planning agreements for major development likely to give rise to additional journeys.
Policy Tra 4 (Private Car Parking) requires private car parking provision to comply with the parking levels set out in supplementary planning guidance, and sets criteria for assessing lower provision.
Policy Tra 5 (Private Cycle Parking) requires cycle parking provision in accordance with levels set out in supplementary guidance.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 28 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.
Policy Inf 6 (Water & Drainage) sets a presumption against development where the water supply and sewerage is inadequate.
Relevant policies of the Proposed Local Development Plan.
Policy Des 7 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.
Policy Env10 (Development in the Green Belt and Countryside) sets out where development proposals will be permitted in the green belt and countryside.
Proposed Local Development Plan Policy Env 11 (Special Landscape Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Areas identified on the Proposals Map.
Proposed Local Development Plan Policy Tra 8 (Cycle and Footpath Network) establishes a presumption against development which would prevent implementation of, prejudice or obstruct the current or potential cycle and footpath network.
Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines
Non-statutory guidelines on Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing gives guidance on the situations where developers will be required to provide affordable housing and/or will be required to make financial or other contributions towards the cost of, providing new facilities for schools, transport improvements, the tram project, public realm improvements and open space.
Non-statutory guidelines 'The Craigmillar Urban Design Framework' sets out a vision and principles for development of the Craigmillar area.
The Open Space Strategy and the audit and action plans which support it are used to interpret local plan policies on the loss of open space and the provision or improvement of open space through new development.
Non-statutory guidelines DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND GREEN BELT, provide guidance on development in the Green Belt and Countryside in support of relevant local plan policies.
Non-Statutory guidelines Edinburgh Design Guidance supports development of the highest design quality and that integrates well with the existing city. It sets out the Council's expectations for the design of new development, including buildings and landscape, in Edinburgh.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 29 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Appendix 1
Application for Planning Permission in Principle 14/01057/PPP At Land 447 Metres Northeast Of 545, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh Residential Development, Ancillary Uses and Associated Development.
Consultations
Affordable Housing comment 2/05/2014
We refer to the consultation request from the Planning Department about this planning application.
Services for Communities have developed a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city. o The AHP makes the provision of affordable housing a planning condition for sites over a particular size. The proportion of affordable housing required is set at 25% (of total units) for all proposals of 12 units or more. o This is consistent with Policy Hou 7 Affordable Housing in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.
2. Affordable Housing Requirement
This application proposes two suggested density options, one for 173 dwellings and the other for 368 dwellings. The AHP will apply to both of these proposals in that (25%) of the units will be required to be of approved affordable housing tenures, as found in Planning Advice Note 2/2010 and within the Council's Affordable Housing Policy. The applicant has made a commitment to provide 25% of the homes as affordable housing in both density proposals and this is welcomed by this department. The requirement for the first option of 173 units will be 43 approved affordable tenures and the second option for 368 will require 92.
With regard to integration, the applicant states that it is the intention to create an integrated community so there is no concentration of a single type of accommodation in any particular part of the site. It is also stated that as the homes will be tenure blind, there is no need to identify the location of the affordable housing. Whilst this is acceptable at this stage i.e. at the planning permission in principle, we would point out that further information on location, size, house type and tenure will be required in any forthcoming detailed planning application.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 30 of 51 14/01057/PPP
3. Summary
The applicant has made a commitment to provide 25% affordable housing on this site and this is welcomed. This is sufficient in terms of detail for an application such as this for planning permission in principle.
However, in any future detailed application and in terms of the AHP this department would require the following further information to be provided in addition to the above amendments to improve integration: o The location, mix and the range of house types and sizes of the affordable housing contribution should be representative of the overall development as a whole, in the interests of achieving a mixed sustainable community. o The applicant is requested to engage in discussions concerning the delivery of these homes at the earliest possible stage with a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). o The affordable housing contribution should be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity within development and follow the principles of blind tenure construction. o The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 75 Legal Agreement to assure delivery of the affordable housing. o 25% of affordable housing shall be delivered onsite, across at least two locations in the interest of guarding against any concentration of affordable housing being delivered
We request that the applicant enter into early dialogue with RSLs on the affordable housing element of this proposal.
Archaeology Officer comment 16/06/2014
Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning this application in principal for residential development, ancillary uses and alternative development.
The Edmonstone Estate occupies the ridge of high ground overlooking the valley of the Niddrie Burn and the historic Estates of Craigmillar and Niddrie Marischal to the North and the Drum to the South. Archaeological evidence shows that this area has been occupied since the prehistoric period with a Roman Road thought to bisect the south western half of the site. GUARD uncovered the remains of a road which they tentatively identified as this Roman Road during their 2008 archaeological evaluation of the estate (report 2607).
The medieval Edmonstone is mentioned in charters from AD 1248 onwards and it is possible that the site has acted as estate centre since the 12th century. Harris (Harris S, Place Names of Edinburgh) records that a Henry de Edmundistun was witness in 1200 to a charter signed by a Henry de Brade with tradition associating the site with Edmond Count of Flanders a companion of Queen Margaret future wife of Malcolm Canmore in 1071. The recent archaeological work by GUARD during 2013, along the route of a new access road running across the eastern and northern boundaries, of the
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 31 of 51 14/01057/PPP site has uncovered medieval remains dating from the 12th /13th centuries thereby supporting this evidence for early medieval occupation on this site.
By the 14th century Edmonstone was the centre of an important estate. The original house, destroyed and rebuilt in 1800, was built around an earlier mansion recorded in a charter of 1613, which may have been originally a late-medieval tower-house. The reference to the remains of what appears to be an even earlier medieval moat surrounding the house is of even greater potential significance, as there is approximately only a 100-recorded moated medieval-manor site throughout Scotland as a whole.
The estate polices surrounding the former house and which form the majority of the application site have been part of a designed landscape since the 17th century and must be in my opinion be regarded as being of Regional if not National historic importance. Contained within the site are the remains of the former Stables, Icehouse, Ha-Ha, Dovecot, Walled-Garden, the estates main farm Edmonstone Mains (Home Farm) and the listed (c) gate-piers and lodge. The coach-house & stable-block is presumed to date from the reconstruction of the House following a fire in 1800. The Icehouse, Ha-ha and wall-garden may be earlier in date, possibly dating to the 18th century with the dovecot likely to date from the 16/17th century.
The 2013 archaeological investigations by GUARD have also provided further evidence for potentially nationally significant early industrial mining with the discovery of widespread late medieval/post-medieval bell pits. These early mines dating to the 16th -17th centuries were first identified at Edmonstone by Headland Archaeology across the adjacent field to the east in 2008 following vertical seems of coal which are know extend across this application site.
Accordingly this site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological and historical significance. This application must be considered therefore under terms the Scottish Government Historic Environment Policy (SHEP), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), PAN 02/2011 and also Edinburgh City Local Plan (2010) policy ENV 3, ENV8 & ENV9 and the Craigmillar Design Framework (revised 2013). The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.
Edmonstone Historic landscape As previously discussed the application site overlies the southern half of in my opinion the regionally important historic landscape for Edmonstone House. Although affected by 19th century changes the landscape in this part of the Estate has reverted back to reflect the important 18th century rural aspect of the designed landscape.
The proposals will see new construction immediately in front of the historic Ha-Ha as well across greater majority of the open ground forming the application site. The Ha-ha was designed in part as a viewing platform to afford views across a rural landscape looking out towards the Drum Estate, the Lammermuirs and Lothian Coastal Plain to the south and east. This is indicated by late-18th century plans e.g. Laurie's 1766 Plan of Edinburgh, which depict a more open landscape.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 32 of 51 14/01057/PPP
In my opinion the proposed construction of either of the two large scale development schemes (173 units or 368 units) across this site will have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of this archaeologically important historic landscape, destroying its surviving open character and significant views which are core to its 17th/18th century design and understanding. Accordingly this application in my opinion is contra to Planning Policy ENV9 and the Craigmillar Design Framework which seeks to protect the appropriate setting of archaeological monuments and as such it is my recommendation this PPP application should be refused consent.
If consent is granted however given that the central historic core of the Estate (incorporating the site of Edmonstone House, the Ha-ha and stables, ice-house) is also incorporated within the red-line boundary of this application, it is essential that an historic landscape Masterplan is is submitted for agreement which will also see the preservation and conservation of these significant historic sites.
Buried archaeology The archaeological evidence as outlined above demonstrates that the application site will contain a wide range of significant archaeological remains dating back into prehistory. The creation of a major residential development as proposed will require significant large scale ground breaking works associated for instance with mine remediation, topsoil removal, construction of housing, roads, services etc. Such works will have a significant adverse affect upon any buried remains including the potentially nationally important preindustrial mine workings. As such a proposed residential scheme on this site must be considered as having an overall moderate-high archaeological impact.
If consent is granted it is essential that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to the submission of any reserved matters / full applications to ensure the appropriate protection and/or full excavation, recording and analysis of any surviving archaeological remains is undertaken. It is envisaged that in addition to the programme outlined by GUARD that a metal detecting survey of the site is undertaken prior to and during any topsoil stripping. Further any archaeological mitigation strategy must also address specifically the investigation and preservation of the historic bell-pits predating the late 18th/19th centuries.
Archaeological Public Engagement Further given the potential importance of these remains in terms of the history of Edinburgh and in particular Edmonstone and the wider Craigmillar area, it is essential that this programme of works contain a programme of public/community engagement (e.g. site open days, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards) the scope of which will be agreed with CECAS.
It is therefore recommended that if consent is granted that in terms of the buried archaeology the following condition be attached to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to construction and remediation works.
'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis & reporting, publication, public engagement & interpretation) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 33 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The work must be carried out by a professional archaeological organisation, either working to a brief prepared by CECAS or through a written scheme of investigation submitted to and agreed by CECAS for the site. Responsibility for the execution and resourcing of the programme of archaeological works and for the archiving and appropriate level of publication of the results lies with the applicant.
Children and Families comment 27/06/2014
Please find below our response in relation to the above planning application. Based on the new action programme process which we now require to follow we are required to provide you with actions.
Option 1 would require:
2 Class ND Primary School extension: £573,000 1 Class RC Primary School extension: £300,000 Contribution of £700,000 for secondary school accommodation provision
Option 2 would require:
3 Class ND Primary School extension: £679,000 1 Class RC Primary School extension: £300,000 Contribution of £1,525,000 for secondary school accommodation provision
All costs are based on those outlined in the Education Infrastructure Appraisal recently completed for the second proposed Local Development Plan. The costs are based on Q1 2014 and should be subject to future inflation. The costs do not include land costs; abnormals or any site specific costs (e.g. remediation requirements, external infrastructure requirements).
As the application site falls with the Liberton Gilmerton Education ND and Liberton Gilmerton RC Contribution Zones, in order to calculate the developer contribution required, the actions have been added to these Zones. Costs within a contribution zone are distributed pro-rata. For this application, this would mean:
Option 1:
ND primary and secondary contribution £1,660,400.76 RC primary contributions: £94,708
Option 2:
ND primary and secondary contribution £3,397,094.99 RC primary contributions: £171,030
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 34 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The Coal Authority comment 7/05/2014
As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
The Coal Authority Response: Material Consideration
We have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area.
The Coal Authority records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application, specifically recorded mine entries and coal close to the surface which has been subject to historic unrecorded mining.
The applicant has submitted a Health and Safety Considerations Relating to Shallow Mineworkings Report (March 2014) which accompany this planning application.
The Shallow Mineworkings Report outlines the site investigations undertaken within the site. The site investigations confirmed that the shallow coal seams within the site have been mined and pose a risk to the proposed development. Furthermore the Shallow Mineworkings Report considers that the mine entries within the site should be identified and secured by drilling and grouting or capping.
Accordingly, appropriate recommendations are included for site stabilisation works, in the form of drilling and grouting, and for the treatment of the mine entries. These works should take place prior to development in order to ensure the site is safe and stable for the proposed development.
As the planning application is only for planning permission in principle, we would expect to be consulted on the approval of reserved matters application to ensure that the layout of the development does not position any built development on or within the influencing distance of the mine entries in order to comply with our policy for building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry. The Coal Authority would take this opportunity to make the applicant aware of our adopted policy: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/assets/coal/whatwedo/4265-policy-for-building-over-or-within- the-influencing.pdf
The applicant should also be advised that a permit is required to undertake the proposed grouting works and, to identify and treat the recorded mine entries within the site. An application to obtain this permit will need to be submitted to, and approved by, the Licensing and Permissions Department of The Coal Authority prior to the start of the proposed works. The Licensing and Permitting Department will assess the detailed specification of the grouting scheme and mine entry treatment scheme as part of the permit application.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 35 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA
The Coal Authority is satisfied that the remedial measures set out in the Health and Safety Considerations Relating to Shallow Mineworkings Report (March 2014) are appropriate to address the coal mining legacy issues present on the application site. The Coal Authority therefore has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a suitably worded Planning Condition, should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, to ensure that these works are undertaken on site prior to commencement of development.
Environmental Assessment comment 12/05/2014
Environmental Assessment have previously provided comments for the following application; a residential development and ancillary uses on land at Edmonstone Estate, Old Dalkeith Road (13/04148/PPP). This development was of a higher density (390 units) therefore the local air quality and noise reports represented a worst case scenario. Therefore the previous comments made are still valid.
The application proposes to erect a new residential development of up to 368 units with associated landscaping and roads. Residential properties are situated to the southwest on the opposite side of the A7, Old Dalkeith Road. A single residential property is located adjacent to the proposed access road junction with the Wisp and the village of Danderhall is approximately 30m east of the site.
Air Quality
An air quality impact assessment has been provided in support of the application which concludes that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on local air quality. Taking into account the baseline conditions, the impact is considered to be negligible and Environmental Assessment can concur with this conclusion.
The applicant has highlighted that mitigation measures will be required in order to control emissions during the construction phase and an informative is recommended to address this.
The Local Authority is required under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to monitor, review and assess air quality in their area by way of staged processes. In this regard, a number of pollutants require to be assessed against national air quality objectives. Where these objectives are unlikely to be met by the target dates, the Local Authority must declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). It also prepares and implements an Air Quality Action Plan to manage and improve air quality in pursuit of the objectives. With respect to this process, there are currently no AQMAs in close proximity to the application site. However, Environmental Assessment would support any sustainable transport interventions being recommend by Transport Planning.
Conclusions
Operational Phase Impacts
With regards to air quality, Environmental Assessment does not object to this development. The developer is however encouraged to work with this section to
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 36 of 51 14/01057/PPP produce a Green Travel Plan which should incorporate the following measures to help mitigate traffic related air quality impacts:
1. Keep Car Parking levels to minimum. 2. Car Club facilities (electric and/or low emission vehicles). 3. Provision of electric vehicle charging facilities. 4. Public transport incentives for residents. 5. Improved cycle/pedestrian facilities and links.
Construction Site Impacts
Due to the scale of the proposed development and the close proximity of the sensitive receptors there may be localised air quality impacts during the construction phase if unmitigated. The applicant has proposed a number of control measures to mitigate construction phase impacts which are satisfactory. Therefore Environmental Assessment will recommend an informative in this regard.
Noise
A noise impact assessment has been provided in support of the application which advises that Dalkeith Road traffic and helicopter noise (from the RIE Hospital operations) may impact upon the development. The development is proposed to be situated directly beneath an existing flight path as presently utilised by the emergency helicopters coming to and going from the hospital. A recent planning application has been consented for a new RIE children's hospital extension which includes a new helipad. The new helipad is likely to increase the number of flights over the proposed development albeit two other routes to and from the hospital are available for use by the helicopter pilots. In this regard, the developer has advised that an assessment of the current helicopter operations is difficult but confirm that a full assessment will be carried out in due course and post consent. This section is in agreement with this approach as an updated assessment which may include the new helipad operations can then be considered. Therefore, the agent proposes to submit further assessments in relation to helicopter and road traffic noise with mitigation measures designed and recommended at that point. Existing residential properties already exist within the area and under the flight path and therefore it is not anticipated that this development will be unduly affected by noise should mitigation measures be incorporated into the development. The internal rooms should be able to be suitably protected by bespoke roof and glazing measures to address the noise from helicopters and road traffic. The external gardens may be affected to some extent by helicopter noise but the sporadic nature of the source should ensure that localised amenity is not unreasonably affected. In terms of road traffic noise, an area adjacent to Old Dalkeith Road is expected to be affected by road traffic noise. In this respect, some consideration of the facade design of the proposed dwellings would be required in order to ensure that the residential elements would attain acceptable internal noise levels which will adequately protect the residential amenity of the properties. Once again, an updated assessment which includes bespoke mitigation measures can be provided at the AMC stage and is supported by this section.
Conditions are recommended below to ensure that further assessments for helicopter and road traffic noise are provided at the detailed (AMC) stage.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 37 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Site Contamination
Previous intrusive investigations have recorded localised contamination in the made ground in the north eastern corner of the site. Further investigations, remediation and possible mitigation measures will be required for the site and a condition is recommended to ensure that the site is made safe for the proposed end use.
Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following condition and informative:
Conditions
1. No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting all bedrooms and living rooms of the residential development against road traffic and helicopter noise has been submitted and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme will be designed in accordance with BS8233:1999 'Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice' to attain the following internal noise levels:
Bedrooms - 30dB LAeq, T and 45dB LAfmax Living Rooms - 35 dB LAeq, D
T - Night-time 8 hours between 2300 - 0700 D - Daytime 16 hours between 0700 - 2300
The agreed scheme must be implemented in full, prior to the use being taken up.
2. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site: (a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning, either that the level of risk posed to human health and the wider environment by contaminants in, on or under the land is acceptable, or that remedial and/or protective measures could be undertaken to bring the risks to an acceptable level in relation to the development; and (b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any remedial and /or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning.
Any required remedial and/or protective measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved schedule and documentary evidence to certify those works shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning.
Informatives
1. The developer shall investigate the installation of electric vehicle charging points with reference to Transport Scotland's Switched On Scotland: a Roadmap to Widespread Adoption of Plug-in Vehicles (2013). With reference to private garages a dedicated 32 amp electric supply should be provided.
2. The development shall be completed in accordance with the requirements specified in the air quality impact assessment Waterman Chapter 8 dated October 2013. The requirements are detailed below:
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 38 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Construction Mitigation o All mobile plant introduced onto the site shall comply with the emission limits for off road vehicles as specified by EC Directive 97/68/EC. All mobile plant shall be maintained to prevent or minimise the release of dark smoke from vehicle exhausts. Details of vehicle maintenance shall be recorded. o The developer shall ensure that risk of dust annoyance from the operations is assessed throughout the working day, taking account of wind speed, direction, and surface moisture levels. The developer shall ensure that the level of dust suppression implemented on site is adequate for the prevailing conditions. The assessment shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures. o Internal un-surfaced temporary roadways shall be sprayed with water at regular intervals as conditions require. The frequency of road spraying shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures. o Surfaced roads and the public road during all ground works shall be kept clean and swept at regular intervals using a road sweeper as conditions require. The frequency of road sweeping shall be recorded as part of documented site management procedures. o All vehicles operating within the site on un-surfaced roads shall not exceed 15mph to minimise the re-suspension of dust. o Where dust from the operations are likely to cause significant adverse impacts at sensitive receptors, then the operation(s) shall be suspended until the dust emissions have been abated. The time and duration of suspension of working and the reason shall be recorded. o This dust management plan shall be reviewed monthly during the construction project and the outcome of the review shall be recorded as part of the documented site management procedures. o No bonfires shall be permitted.
Police Scotland comment 14/04/2014
The developer should consider meeting the requirements of secure by design for the site. More details can be found at http://www.securedbydesign.com.
Once a decision has been made with regards the layout and number of units, the developer should consider setting up a meeting with a police Architectural Liaison Officer.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 39 of 51 14/01057/PPP
SEPA comment 1/05/2014
We object to this planning application on the grounds of lack of information. We will review this objection if the issues detailed in Section 1.1 to 1.7 below are adequately addressed.
Advice for the planning authority
1 Workings Grouting
1.1 The proposals for residential and associated development for this site in the Edmonstone policies will require mine workings grouting and possible mine capping due to the legacy of historic mining at the site. The degree of rigour with which we have made our assessment has been balanced in the context of the generic risk posed by this kind of activity and the hydrogeological setting in which it will occur.
1.2 At present, we object to the proposed development due to a lack of information on how proposed mine workings grouting will be undertaken at the site and how this will affect groundwater.
1.3 Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) grouting does have the potential to cause environmental damage if it is not properly managed. The pouring of grout below the water table is a controlled activity under general binding rule (GBR) 16 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 20011 (CAR), which includes a requirement that no material coming into contact with groundwater shall cause pollution of the water environment.
1.4 Further details relating to CAR requirements can be found on SEPA's website at; http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_regulation/regimes.aspx
1.5 If the activity causes pollution, SEPA may take enforcement action in accordance with these regulations. We recommend, therefore, that the applicant assesses the risk from this activity in line with the guidance document entitled 'BRE488 Stabilising Mine Workings with PFA Grouts - Environmental Code of Practice (2006)'*, which includes a methodology for assessing the risks to groundwater from PFA grouts. (*BRE509 may also be used to assess the risk to groundwater.)
1.6 Key points to note are: o An adequate hydrogeological conceptual model is required (e.g. an assessment of ground conditions, depth to groundwater, likely flow of groundwater, depth/size of old mines workings etc). Ideally, the conceptual model would be backed up with site specific ground investigation and monitoring data. o It is recommended that the applicant/agent carries out an appropriate water features survey to identify what there is in the surrounding area that might be affected by the grout. o Note that potential hazards and impacts may not necessarily be confined to the proposed development site. Applicants should consider and mitigate as necessary risks both within and outwith the development site.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 40 of 51 14/01057/PPP
o It should be noted that even if mine waters are currently low (i.e. below workings to be grouted), groundwater levels might, in the future, rebound into the grouted zone if mine water pumping were to cease. SEPA would recommend that both scenarios are considered. o If the excavation works require dewatering, the applicant may be required to demonstrate that this will not adversely affect the hydrogeological regime. Any adverse effects will depend on the size and duration of the excavation works.
1.7 The disturbance of the existing system and the potential mobilisation of any existing contaminants through grouting works need to be assessed where appropriate.
1.8 Consultation with The Coal Authority is recommended.
1.9 It is recommended that the applicant contacts the Operations Team to notify them of any proposed grouting of mine workings for the stabilisation of land prior to construction. Please see section 6 for contact details.
2 Flood Risk
2.1 We have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds. Notwithstanding this we expect the City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) to undertake its responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority.
2.2 We have previously commented on the risk of flooding to this site and we highlighted that although the risks within the site may be minimal, it should be noted that surface water management may be a significant factor within the boundary of the site due to the steepness of the topography. Appropriate strategies should be in place to prevent an increased risk of flooding elsewhere.
2.3 We note that CEC's Flood Prevention Officer has previously requested that a surface water management strategy should be undertaken to adequately address any issues which may arise from surface water on the site.
2.4 The Flood Risk Assessment states that drainage will be limited to a Greenfield runoff rate (1:2 year) of 4.14l/s/ha. CEC should comment if this is acceptable to them.
2.5 As there appears to be no discharge point for any drainage from the site, we highly recommend that the Flood Prevention Authority comment on this issue. Previously we were aware of a proposal that water could be discharge to existing culverts at the site. We would recommend that these culverts are assessed to ensure that they are adequately sized to receive this discharge at a single location and that the culvert discharge point is identified. It is not clear if an investigation to the route and discharge location of the existing culvert has been undertaken. If this is not adequately investigated then a break / blockage or diversion of this culvert may result in uncontrolled discharge at a downstream location.
2.6 We would recommend that any ground conditions for any infiltration scheme be fully investigated to prevent unexpected discharges "springing" up in a down gradient neighbouring development.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 41 of 51 14/01057/PPP
2.7 We advise that if any off-site discharge or drainage arrangements are required then any ownership and management agreements need to be highlighted and agreed prior to planning permission being given.
3 Surface Water and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)
3.1 In principle the proposals for surface water and SUDS are satisfactory. The technical details, however, will need to be agreed prior to work commencing on site, and the developer will need to confirm that the surface water drainage arrangements comply with GBR 10 and 11 of CAR.
4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.1 An air quality modelling assessment has been undertaken and the findings are reported in Section 8 (Air Quality). We note and welcome the decision to use ADMS Roads to assess the impact of traffic on local air quality.
4.2 The modelling assessment has shown that the completed development is likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality. The proposed development is quite small and, therefore, we agree with the findings of this assessment. We note, however, that the development is located some considerable distance from local amenities and, therefore, there will be an increase in the number of journeys made by car. Whilst this figure may appear to be insignificant, when it is considered in combination with other developments in Scotland, the overall increase in car travel (and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gas emissions) could undermine the Scottish Government's target to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. The applicant may wish to consider, therefore, options that would offset carbon emissions, such as electric charging points that would help to encourage the uptake of low carbon transport.
4.3 When considered in isolation, this development will appear to have a negligible impact on local air quality; but when considered in combination with all other developments in the area, the cumulative impact is could be more significant, particularly along main commuter routes, such as the A7 (Old Dalkeith Road).
SEPA further comment 9/06/2014
We are writing to you to remove SEPA's objection to planning application 14/01057/PPP on the grounds of lack of information on the potential impact on ground water of mine workings grouting. (Please see our letter of 1 May 2004, our reference: PCS/132855.)
On 6 May 2014, we received from Mason Evans a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment incorporating Water Features which allowed us to remove our objection of 25 April 2014 (our reference: PCS/132838) to planning application 14/01166/FUL (Ground stabilisation). As requested by you and the applicants, we have considered this Assessment in relation to planning application 14/01057/PPP and we consider that it satisfies the requirements to reduce the potential risk to groundwater under general binding rule (GBR) 16 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR).
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 42 of 51 14/01057/PPP
The applicants have also submitted revised drainage strategies for higher and lower densities of development as part of application 14/01166/FUL. In our response of 1 May 2014 I wrote that in principle the proposals for surface water and SUDS were satisfactory, but that the technical details will need to be agreed prior to work commencing on site, and that the applicant will need to confirm that the surface water drainage arrangements comply with General Binding Rules (GBR) 10 and 11 of The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). This is still our view: we consider there are points that need to be clarified before this application can be determined. Please see 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 below.
Please note our advice on flood risk at section 3, and our advice on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions in our letter of 1 May 2014.
Detailed advice for the planning authority
1. Mine Workings Grouting
1.1 Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) grouting has the potential to cause environmental damage if not properly managed. The pouring of grout below the water table is a controlled activity under general binding rule (GBR) 16 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 20011 (CAR), which includes a requirement that no material coming into contact with groundwater shall cause pollution of the water environment.
1.2 Due to a lack of information regarding the protection of groundwater, we objected to planning application 14/01057/PPP on the grounds of lack of information on the following key points. o An adequate hydrogeological conceptual model, e.g. an assessment of ground conditions, depth to groundwater, likely flow of groundwater, depth/size of old mines workings etc. Ideally, the conceptual model to be backed up with site specific ground investigation and monitoring data. o We recommended the applicant/agent to carry out an appropriate water features survey to identify what groundwater in the surrounding area might be affected by the grout. o We advised that potential hazards and impacts may not necessarily be confined to the proposed development site, and that the applicants should consider and mitigate, as necessary, risks both within and outwith the development site. o We noted that even if mine waters are currently low (i.e. below workings to be grouted), groundwater levels might, in the future, rebound into the grouted zone if mine water pumping were to cease. We recommended that both scenarios were considered. o We also advised that if the excavation works required dewatering, the applicant might be required to demonstrate that this will not adversely affect the hydrogeological regime, and that any adverse effects will depend on the size and duration of the excavation works.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 43 of 51 14/01057/PPP
1.3 There are two key concluding comments in Edmonstone Policies, Edinburgh, Proposed Ground Stablisation Works - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment Incorporating Water Features Survey, May 2014. o 4.1.1 'A survey of the proposed grouting works location has indicated that there are no surface water features within the site or 250m of the boundary. The groundwater was identified as being the main contaminant receptor.' o 4.1.2 'The proposed mine consolidation works at the site, and the use of PFA grouts does not present a risk of leaching contaminants directly into the groundwater as the grout will be placed above the water table. It is considered unlikely that the groundwater will rise in the future as no pumping or abstraction of groundwater is occurring in the area. Although the grout has a potential for leaching, the dilution factor calculated on this leachate indicates the contaminants to be below guideline levels. Additionally good working practices will further reduce the leachability of the grout.'
1.4 We accept that the Hydrogeological Risk Assessment, along with the concluding comments and supporting appendices, satisfy the requirements needed to reduce the potential risk to groundwater under general binding rule (GBR) 16 of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 20011 (CAR) and we are able to remove our objection to planning application 14/01166/FUL.
2. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)
2.1 From the limited additional detail which has been provided, it appears that the drainage proposals are acceptable in principle, but the lack of technical information which has been provided make it difficult to confirm that they are acceptable: details of the swale and filter trenches are required.
2.2 From the drainage plan that has been provided it appears that the site will drain via the SUDS basin. In our view, this would be a very good final treatment feature, but we advise that confirmation is sought by CEC that this is the case and that the applicant provides a more integrated plan of drainage for the site.
2.3 For the higher density development (368 units), we would prefer to see source control measures being implemented for SUDS, but this is at the discretion of the applicant.
2.4 Once the technical detail identified at 2.1 and 2.2 has been provided or confirmed we will be content for this drainage scheme to form part of planning permission and to be developed further in an application for matters specified in conditions, if CEC approves this application for planning permission in principle.
3. Flood Risk
3.1 We have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds. Notwithstanding this we would expect Edinburgh Council to undertake their responsibilities as the Flood Prevention Authority.
3.2 We have previously commented on the risk of flooding to this site and highlighted that although the risks within the site may be minimal, it should be noted
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 44 of 51 14/01057/PPP that surface water management may be a significant factor within the boundary of the site due to the steepness of the topography. Appropriate strategies should be in place to prevent an increased risk of flooding elsewhere.
3.3 The new information suggests a new drainage outfall will be constructed from the site to the Niddrie Burn. This is to mitigate against unknown issues of the condition and exact location of the existing drainage pipe / culvert. As the route of the new pipe may be outside the ownership of the applicant, we would recommend that any long term access and maintenance agreements for the route of the new discharge pipe are agreed prior to planning permission being given.
3.4 Edinburgh Council Flood Prevention Team should comment if the Greenfield runoff rates and discharge outfall arrangements are acceptable to them.
Historic Scotland comment 7/05/2014
Thank you for your consultation of 11 April and the accompanying Environmental Statement for the above development proposal. We received these via the Scottish Government's planning decisions division and this response covers our comments on the Planning Application and it's Environmental Statement (ES) for our role as consultees through the Scottish Ministers under the terms of the above Regulations.
We are an agency within the Scottish Government directly responsible to Scottish Ministers for the protection and promotion of the historic environment. Our comments here concentrate on our statutory remit for scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, and gardens and designed landscapes and historic battlefields appearing in their respective Inventories.
Historic Scotland's position
We returned comments on the previous proposal (dated 28 November 2013) and had no objection to the application or recommendations for mitigation beyond that proposed in the Environmental Statement. Given the site boundary remains unaltered and the volume of housing units reduced, we agree with the statement in the supporting letter that the worst case scenario has already been assessed. Overall, the amendments to the scheme do not alter our view and I can confirm that we have no further representations to make.
Scottish Natural Heritage comment 15/05/2014
We note that this application is a revised proposal of 173 units, a reduced density of housing with increased areas of open space and woodland. The ES accompanying this proposal has not been revised so the assessment of impacts from the development remains the same as in the original application, aside from updated landscape documents.
Our comments (as per our original response of 27 November 2013) therefore remain largely unchanged with regards to the environmental assessment of the proposal, in particular with regards to protected species. Our comments were also based on the principles of development at this site and these principles largely remain.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 45 of 51 14/01057/PPP
We do however note beneficial improvements to the overall layout of this revised scheme, in terms of its implications for the natural heritage. We provide some brief commentary on these changes, together with associated recommendations, in the appendix to this letter. Should the council be minded to approve this application we would advise that these recommendations are implemented but it is for the planning authority to determine, within the context of its own policies, whether conditions are necessary to secure these recommendations.
Appendix: Further comments
Landscape and Visual Impacts
In our previous response to the proposal for 368 houses on this site we commented that the principal landscape and visual impacts arising from that proposal would be the direct impacts on the parkland of the Edmonstone Estate Designed Landscape, which we consider to be of notable local importance. We noted that the scale and extent of the proposals (in terms of proposed built development, ancillary infrastructure such as paths, lighting and woodland belt planting) within the existing parkland would result in a fundamental change to the current fabric and landscape character of the parkland. We provided further advice relating to the suggested benefits of drawing development back from sensitive edges; to the need for carefully considered design of planting; to the retention or repositioning of stone walls; and with regards to various matters relating to the resolution of open space and long term landscape maintenance within the site.
We consider the revised proposal, by virtue of its scale and location within the designed landscape, will still have detrimental impacts on the character and composition of the designed landscape, eroding the generally open and distinctive character of the parkland. We therefore advise that the alteration to the spatial qualities of the parkland and the change to its overall character remains a key issue for consideration.
We do however acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the proposed development layout and the beneficial details with regards to tree retention, planting, paths, access and drainage. The proposed increase in open space, particularly the improvements in green network connectivity and tree retention in areas along the western boundary nearer to the core of the designed landscape are to be welcomed. We also note an improved relationship of housing to open space with appropriate treatment of garden boundaries, as well as a redefined development boundary as would be seen from the A7 and Wisp junction.
Summary
We advise that the revised proposal continues to present key issues which relate to the scale and location of development within the Edmonstone Estate parkland. However, should the council be minded to approve this application we would advise that matters of detailed design relevant to tree protection, landscaping, open space and public access and amenity within the site are taken forward in line with current layouts and detailed proposals. It is for the planning authority to determine, within the context of its own policies, whether conditions are necessary to secure this mitigation. Appropriate measures for the financing and delivery of long term maintenance and management of the open space and wider landscape would also be important matters to address.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 46 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Scottish Water comment 12/05/2014
Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. However we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and wastewater treatment works in advance of formal agreement made with us works in advance of formal agreement made with us. In view of this, the information provided in this letter will need to be reviewed if this proposal progresses to full planning approval.
Due to the size of this proposed development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact this new demand will have on our existing infrastructure. With Any development of 10 or more housing units, or equivalent, there is a requirement to submit a fully completed Development Impact Assessment form. Development Impact Assessment forms can be found at www.scottishwater.co.uk.
Glencorse Water Treatment Works currently may have the capacity to service this proposed development.
Edinburgh PFI Wastewater Treatment Works - at present there is limited capacity to serve this new demand. The Developer should discuss their development directly with Scottish Water.
Scottish Water is funded to provide capacity at Water and Waste water Treatment Works for domestic demand. Funding will be allocated to carry out work at treatment works to provide growth in line with the Local Authority priorities.
If this development requires the existing network to be upgraded, to enable connection, the developer will generally meet these costs in advance.
A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water requires a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2 if the system is to be considered for adoption.
Scottish Water's current minimum level of service for water pressure is 1.0 bar or 10m head at the customer's boundary internal outlet. Any property which cannot be adequately serviced from the available pressure may require private pumping arrangements installed, subject to compliance with the current water byelaws. If the developer wishes to enquire about Scottish Water's procedure for checking the water pressure in the area then they should write to the Customer Connections department at the above address.
If the connection to public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out- with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s). This should be done through a deed of servitude.
Transport comment 23/04/2014
Transport has no objection to the proposed application.
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 47 of 51 14/01057/PPP
However, the traffic impacts of the proposed development will be felt most on The Wisp and Old Dalkeith Road. As these roads lie within Midlothian Council's area, the comments of that Council will be required in order for Transport to respond to a detailed planning application.
Subject to Midlothian's response, we would expect the following to be included as conditions or informatives as appropriate. Please note that some of these items may be implemented under other planning permissions:
1. A suitable legal agreement will be required to: a. implement improvements to the traffic signals at The Wisp / Old Dalkeith Road. The design, specification etc. of the proposed improvements will require the approval of Midlothian Council and will require to be completed prior to the first occupation of the proposed development; b. provide a 2m wide footway linking the northern access road to Edmonstone Road, a distance of approximately 60m at no cost to the Council or Midlothian Council. The works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning prior to first occupation of the development. The design and specification to be agreed in writing by the Head of Planning; c. provide a suitable cycle track linking the development to Ferniehill Road prior to first occupation of the development; d. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to progress a suitable traffic order to designate parking spaces for disabled persons' vehicles; e. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to progress a suitable order to introduce waiting and loading restrictions as required; f. Contribute the sum of £2,000 to implement a 20mph speed limit within the development; g. Contribute a suitable sum to Midlothian Council to implement a 30mph speed limit on The Wisp (Midlothian Council). Speed limit to be implemented prior to first occupation;
2. Road construction consent: a. All accesses must be open for use by the public in terms of the statutory definition of 'road' and require to be the subject of applications for road construction consent, including materials, layout, design, specification, drainage, SUDs, lighting etc.; b. Clarification of the extent of roads will be required and will include the cycle track from Ferniehill Road; c. Appropriate structural approval may be required including that for mine workings; d. Swept path analysis will be required, particularly in relation to refuse and emergency service vehicles; e. Appropriate lighting will be required for all roads including cycle tracks and appropriate pedestrian routes. Note that bollard lighting is not acceptable;
3. All roads are expected to be designed in accordance with Designing Streets and are to be designed to 20mph standard. A Stage 2 Quality Audit will be required in accordance with Designing Streets as part of any detailed planning application;
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 48 of 51 14/01057/PPP
4. The area has extensive mine workings which may require appropriate measures and structural approval;
5. The applicant should note that new road names will be required and they should be asked to discuss this with the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team at an early opportunity. Street naming is likely to influence the progression of any traffic regulation orders;
6. The applicant must be informed that the proposed on-street spaces within the site cannot be allocated to individual properties, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will be available to all road users including visitors. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-street spaces, whether the road has been adopted or not. The developer is expected to make this clear to prospective residents and tenants;
7. Parking provision is expected to be to Council standards.
Transport Scotland Trunk Road and Bus Operations comment 30/04/2014
The proposed development represents an intensification of the use of this site however the percentage increase in traffic on the trunk road is such that the proposed development is likely to cause minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network. On this basis TRBOD has no comment to make.
Midlothian Council comment 1/07/2014
Thank you for providing Midlothian Council with the opportunity to comment on the above planning application. There has been a number of planning applications relating to this land at Edmonstone, which this Council has attempted to assess. I understand that some developments are now withdrawn and some yet to be considered. I have been advised that the current application is for residential development, but as this is for permission in principle, the potential capacity is yet unclear, with submitted drawings showing 173 houses and 368 houses. This lack of clarity makes responding on the impacts difficult.
As the proposed development is in the Green Belt, and the Edinburgh Local Development Plan Proposed Plan does not allocate this land for development, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. On this basis there would seem to be no justification for supporting the development. However Midlothian Council would not object to the principle of development if the City of Edinburgh Council considers this to be appropriate on this occasion and bearing in mind the need to meet the SESplan housing land requirement.
Despite the above statement, Midlothian Council has significant concerns regarding the potential traffic impact arising should this development proceed, and on the basis upon which the traffic assessment has based its conclusions. It is also concerned about what is considered inadequate provisions being made to overcome some of the traffic impacts.
The Transport Assessment (TA) accompanying the application has excluded any consideration of the proposed development of a new settlement and additional
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 49 of 51 14/01057/PPP development in the Shawfair area of Midlothian, despite Midlothian Council requesting, through the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping response, that this be included. The TA states that there is insufficient information on the scale and timing of Shawfair for it to be part of the assessment. This is considered to be inadequate. The recent announcement (involving Scottish Government, City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council) confirming the completion of the Shawfair section 75 and consent processes, and the imminent start of housebuilding provides confirmation of the Shawfair implementation timescale.
A transport appraisal was undertaken for the South East Wedge, and although this will be somewhat dated, the scales of development remain valid, and can form the basis of a more comprehensive transport appraisal.
The TA for the current application concludes that the proportionate scale of traffic arising from the development would be relatively marginal. It is acknowledged that the proportionate development impact would be further reduced when compared against a larger development base (including Shawfair). However considering the impact of the combined developments would be likely to raise some transport challenges, and this Council considers that the application site cannot be excluded from taking responsible action through appropriate levels of contribution to help resolve some of these challenges.
The Environmental Assessment (para 6.68) confirms that there would be capacity impact at the existing signals of Old Dalkeith Road and The Wisp. It states that this can be addressed through a scheme of minor widening to aid future flow through this junction.
Taking into account the above comments, and should the City of Edinburgh Council intend to grant consent, there are a number of issues which Midlothian Council requests are addressed:
1 There is a need to clarify the potential scale of development that might arise at this location, to ensure traffic impact is properly addressed;
2 A review of the TA should be undertaken which takes account of the full extent of the Shawfair development to identify the scale and impact of traffic issues;
3 A scheme of improvements for the Old Dalkeith Road and The Wisp needs to be prepared in agreement with Midlothian Council, which could consider road widening on The Wisp to incorporate an additional lane, helping to reduce waiting queues and increasing vehicle flows through the junction (which will also improve egress from the development site, especially if the southern access point is included in the final layout). Additionally scope for incorporating bus lanes on Old Dalkeith Road could be considered; and
4 A contribution to improvements at Sheriffhall roundabout should be sought. It is clear that all development within the 'catchment' of Sheriffhall could have an impact on capacity of the junction. Given the widely accepted view of many parties, including Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, and our two Councils about the potential impacts on the Bioquarter from congestion on the strategic road network, it is considered essential that developer contributions are sought, where appropriate, to
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 50 of 51 14/01057/PPP ensure the impact of congestion at this key strategic network junction is reduced. Such developer contributions would be in line with the approach being adopted for the Shawfair development.
Location Plan
© Crown Copyright and database right 2014. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey License number 100023420 END
Development Management Sub-Committee – 30 July 2014 Page 51 of 51 14/01057/PPP
Edmonstone Policies
Bell Pit Exposed in Link Road Excavations Lined Shaft Adjacent to the Link Road