Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee

Notice of meeting and agenda

10:00 am Wednesday 3 June 2015

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

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

Contacts:

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4261 / 0131 529 4085

1. Order of business

1.1 Including any notices of motion and any other items of business submitted as urgent for consideration at the meeting. 1.2 Any member of the Council can request a Hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward. Members of the Sub-Committee can request a presentation on any item in part 5 of the agenda. Members must advise Committee Services of their request by no later than 9.00am on the Tuesday preceding the meeting (see contact details in the further information section at the end of this agenda). 2. Declaration of interests

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

3. Minutes

3.1 Development Management Sub-Committee of 20 May 2015 (circulated – submitted for approval as a correct record).

4. Hearing Requests from Ward Councillors

If a member of the Council has submitted a written request for a hearing to be held on an application that raises a local issue affecting their ward, the Development Management Sub-Committee will decide at this point in the meeting whether or not to hold a hearing based on the information submitted. All requests for hearings will be notified to members prior to the meeting 5. General applications and miscellaneous business

The recommendations by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards or other Chief Officers detailed in their reports will be approved without debate unless the Clerk to the meeting indicates otherwise during “Order of Business” at item 1 above. 5.1 Belgrave Road, Edinburgh – Tree Preservation Order No 175 - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this order be CONFIRMED. 5.2 7 Boswall Green, Edinburgh – Proposed demolition of single storey dwelling and erection of 2 storey flatted property (containing two flats in total) (as amended) - application no. 15/01344/FUL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 7 5.3 8 Ettrick Road, Edinburgh – Extend garage and raise wall head with pitched roof over incorporating bedroom/shower room - application no. 15/01354/FUL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 5.4 39 High Street, South Queensferry (Car Park) – To continue to allow the use of a public parking area as a community market with the erection of gazebos on selected days in July, September and December 2015 and monthly on the last Sunday of the month from April to September 2015. - application no. 15/00923/FUL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 5.5 Princes Street, Edinburgh (Bus Shelter Advertising Panels) – Double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters comprising full motion digital screens on outer faces and static LED backlit paper adverts on inner faces. - application no. 15/01869/ADV - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 5.6 Princes Street, Edinburgh (Bus Shelter Advertising Panels)– Double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters comprising full motion digital screens on outer faces and static LED backlit paper adverts on inner faces. - application no. 15/01870/ADV - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 5.7 Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh (Redhall House) – Tree Preservation Order No 174 - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be CONFIRMED. 6. Returning Applications These applications have been discussed previously by the Sub- Committee. The Sub-Committee instructed the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report on detailed reasons for refusal or on the conditions to be attached to approval. 6.1 181-183 Canongate, Edinburgh – alterations including installation of twin 150mm diameter flue ducts to rear elevation and change of use of existing shop premises (Class 1 Shops) to form restaurant (Class 3 Food and Drink) - application no. 14/02158/FUL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 7

6.2 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh (Land 115 Metres Southeast of) – residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping - application no 14/01446/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) The Development management Sub-Committee on 20 May 2015 refused planning permission and instructed Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back with the detailed reason for refusal for noting. 6.3 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh – demolish existing steel framed warehouse buildings and subsequent 240 bed student accommodation development with associated external landscaping - application no. 14/05255/FUL - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED. 7. Applications for Detailed Presentation

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards has identified the following applications for detailed presentation to the Sub-Committee. A decision to grant, refuse or continue consideration will be made following the presentation and discussion on each item. 7.1 8 Bellevue Crescent, Edinburgh (Garage 32 Metres Southwest Of) – Proposed change of use of domestic lock up garage to form studio office accommodation. – application no. 15/00700/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be REFUSED. 8. Application for Hearing The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards has identified the following applications as meeting the criteria for Hearings. The protocol note by the Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance sets out the procedure. 8.1(a) 40 Stanley Place, Edinburgh – Protocol Note by the Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance (circulated) 8.1(b) 40 Stanley Place, Edinburgh – Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 93 no units of student accommodation with ancillary services – application no. 14/05075/FUL – report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be GRANTED.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 7

9. Returning Applications Following Site Visit

These applications have been discussed at a previous meeting of the Sub- Committee and were continued to allow members to visit the sites. 9.1(a) 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh – Demolish existing stone building and erect two new blocks to form four dwellings in total and erection of an electricity sub-station to the north-east corner – application no 14/05155/FUL– report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be REFUSED. 9.1(b) 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh –To demolish existing stone villa and existing garages and storage buildings - application no 14/05156/CON - report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards (circulated) It is recommended that this application be REFUSED.

10. Pre-Application Reports

No decisions will be taken on these applications at this meeting. Following a presentation by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, members will have the opportunity to ask questions and indicate key issues they would like the applicants to consider in their eventual application/s. Members will not express a view on the merits of the proposal/s.

10.1 None.

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance

Committee Members

Councillors Perry (Convener), Dixon (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Balfour, Blacklock, Brock, Cairns, Child, Heslop, Howat, Keil, McVey, Milligan, Mowat and Robson.

Information about the Development Management Sub-Committee

The Development Management Sub-Committee consists of 15 Councillors and usually meets twice a month. The Sub-Committee usually meets in the Dean of Guild Room in the City Chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh. There is a seated public gallery Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 7 and the meeting is open to all members of the public. Further information

All members of the Council have been notified of the publication of this agenda. Any member can request a hearing if an item raises a local issue affecting their ward. Members must advise Committee Services by no later than 9.00am on the Tuesday preceding the meeting if they wish to be heard. Contacts: Stephen Broughton 0131 529 4261 email [email protected] or Blair Ritchie 0131 529 4085 email [email protected] . A summary of the recommendations on each planning application is shown on the agenda. Please refer to the circulated reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards or other Chief Officers for full details. Online Services - planning applications can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/planning - this includes letters of comments received. Members of the Sub-Committee can request a detailed presentation on the applications in Section 4 of the agenda. The Clerk will advise of any requests received under “Order of Business” and the report will be discussed later in the meeting. Members of the Council who are not members of the Sub-Committee can make a request for an application to be considered by means of a Hearing, in order to speak on an application if the development is located in their Council ward. The Clerk will report this under “Order of Business” prior to the Sub-Committee considering the request. Otherwise, ward members are not permitted to speak on applications at the meeting. Only elected members and officers of the Council may speak at the meeting unless the item is shown as a Hearing. For Hearings, the list of individuals and/or organisations invited to speak at the meeting will be detailed in the relevant report. The Development Management Sub-Committee does not hear deputations on planning applications. For the majority of planning applications, the decision rests with the Development Management Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee only makes recommendations to the full Council on national/major planning applications, as defined in legislation. Reports on that type of application which require a “pre-determination hearing” will explain the process.

If you have any questions about the agenda or meeting arrangements, please contact Stephen Broughton or Blair Ritchie, Committee Services, City of Edinburgh Council, Business Centre 2:1, Waverley Court, 4 East Market Street, Edinburgh, EH8 8BG, Tel: 0131 529 4201 / 0131 529 4085 email [email protected] / [email protected] . A copy of the agenda and papers for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the main reception office, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh. The agenda, minutes and public reports for this meeting and all the main Council committees can be viewed online by going to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings .

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 7 Webcasting of Council Meetings

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

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

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

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

If you have any queries regarding this, and, in particular, if you believe that use and/or storage of any particular information would cause, or be likely to cause, substantial damage or distress to any individual, please contact Committee Services on 0131 529 4106 or [email protected] .

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 7 Minutes Item No 3.1

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee

10.00 am Wednesday 20 May 2015

Present: Councillors Perry (Convener), Dixon (Vice-Convener), Bagshaw, Blacklock, Cairns, Child, Heslop, McVey, Milligan, Robson and Ross.

1. General Applications and Miscellaneous Business

The Sub-Committee considered the reports on planning applications and pre-applications, listed in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the agenda for the meeting. The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards gave presentations on agenda items 5.1 (14, 16-18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh) and item 5.3 (181-183 Canongate, Edinburgh) as requested by Councillors Bagshaw and Mowat respectively. A request to consider agenda item 7.1 (8 Bridge Road, Edinburgh) by holding a hearing session had been received from Councillors Lewis and Rust. Decision To determine the applications as detailed in the Appendix to this minute. (Reference – reports by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted) 2. Minutes

Decision To approve the minute of the Development Management Sub Committee of 29 April 2015 as a correct record.

3. 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh (Land 115 Metres Southeast Of)

The Sub-Committee had agreed to hold a hearing for consideration of the following application at 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh (Land 115 metres southeast of) - Residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping – Application no 14/01446/FUL.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015 (a) Report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards gave details of the proposals and advised that the development was contrary to the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan for the reason that it involved a non-conforming Green Belt development. However the site had been identified for housing in the first Local Development Plan and had also been included in the second Proposed Local Development Plan for housing with an indicative capacity of 50-70 units. This was a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application.

The scale, design, landscape setting and materials were acceptable. The arrangements for parking were acceptable and there were no implications for road safety. Residential amenity was protected, flood risk issues had been addressed and the Surface Water Drainage design was acceptable. In addition all archaeological features were to be protected.

The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards recommended that the Sub- Committee grant planning permission for the development.

The presentation can be viewed via the link below:

http://www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997http:/www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997

(b) Gilmerton Inch Community Council

Karen Maclean on behalf of Gilmerton Inch Community Council outlined the concerns of the Community Council, in relation to the proposals. The Community Council understood that there was £1m difference between the work on infrastructure that the Council said needed to be done, and the amount that the developer said they could afford to pay. The Community Council felt the developer should contribute the entire amount as any reduction would set a precedent for other greenbelt developments. The Community Council’s view was that any reduction in developer contribution would have an adverse impact on overall vision of this development.

The presentation can be viewed via the link below:

http://www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997http:/www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015 (b) Miller Homes

Arthur Mann and Peter Thomson outlined the case for the proposals on behalf of Miller Homes. They would deliver 61 new homes, which would be a mixture of affordable homes and private dwellings. If planning consent was granted, this would allow Miller Homes to finalise and sign the section 75 agreement, buy the site and proceed with the development.

This development was of small scale and would have no great impact on the area compared with larger developments in the City. The proposed development would only generate an extra 14 pupils for the existing school. Millar Homes had not budgeted for the substantial increase in the planning gain, which they were expected to pay and the latest figure of £1.2 - £1.7m was not sustainable. They could only afford a planning gain of £610,000.

They asked the Sub-Committee to determine the application according to the officer’s recommendations and grant planning consent.

The presentation can be viewed via the link below:

http://www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997http:/www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997

Councillor Bill Cook, local Ward Councillor for Liberton/Gilmerton advised that he was concerned about the proposals. The proposed development was in the green belt and within the Local Development Plan for this area. Infrastructure was a real issue in the Gilmerton area and there were concerns about traffic congestion and the availability of school places. These were real issues and it was difficult to see how these would be managed. Additionally, the local Community Council had made representation against the proposals. The application should, therefore, be refused.

The presentation can be viewed via the link below:

http://www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997http:/www.edinburgh.public- i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/148997

Decision

1) To refuse planning permission because the proposal did not adequately provide for the additional transport and education infrastructure required as a result of the development and as such is contrary to Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Policy 7 'Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply'.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015 2) To require the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back with the detailed reason for refusal for noting by the Sub-Committee.

(Reference – Development Management Sub-Committee 22 April 2015 (item 3); report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted) 4. 10 Rose Lane, South Queensferry

The Sub-Committee had previously continued consideration of the application for further details of community engagement. The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards reported on an application for planning permission for the installation of a mosaic sculpture created by the local community, at the green/landscaped section east of the carpark at 10 Rose Lane, South Queensferry (application no. 14/04969/FUL). The Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards gave details of the proposal and the planning considerations involved, and recommended that permission be granted.

Motion

To grant planning permission subject to informatives as detailed in Section 3 of the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards. - moved by Councillor Perry, seconded by Councillor Heslop. Amendment To refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposals would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area. - moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Blacklock. Voting For the motion - 5 votes For the amendment - 4 votes Decision To grant planning permission subject to informatives as detailed in Section 3 of the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards. (References – Development Management Sub-Committee 11 March 2015 (item 1); report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards, submitted)

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015 Appendix

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

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

Item 5.1 – 14,16-18 Demolish existing steel framed To CONTINUE consideration of Bothwell Street, warehouse buildings and the application for further Edinburgh subsequent 240 bed student discussions with the developer accommodation development with with a view to increasing cycle associated external landscaping parking provision to between 50- 75% of total bed spaces and to Application no. 14/05255/FUL consult the Council’s Economic Development Department on the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of employment land and impact on neighbouring businesses as required by Policy Emp 4.

Item 5.2 – 46-56 Development of student residential To GRANT planning permission Buccleuch Street accommodation (incorporating subject to informatives detailed in and 7,9,10,11 and 12 demolition of garage/ workshop section 3 of the report by the Meadow Lane, units) with associated ancillary Acting Head of Planning and Edinburgh uses and amenity spaces Building Standards. Application no. 14/04921/LBC

Item 5.3 – 181-183 Alterations including installation of To CONTINUE consideration of the Canongate, Edinburgh twin 150mm diameter flue ducts to application to the next meeting of rear elevation and change of use of the Sub-Committee on 3 June existing shop premises (Class 1 2015. Shops) to form restaurant (Class 3 Food and Drink) Application no. 14/02158/FUL

Item 5.4 – 3 Charles Section 75 modification of planning To GRANT planning permission Street, Edinburgh obligations subject to informatives as detailed Application no. 15/01121/OBL in section 3 of the report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015

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

Item 5.5 – 118A,120A Change of use of Unit 2 from retail to To GRANT planning permission Dundas Street, cafe with works comprising internal subject to conditions, reasons and Edinburgh alterations to create a single unit informatives as detailed in section 3 from two separate units to create a of the report by the Acting Head of combined continental-themed cafe Planning and Building Standards. and retail unit Application no. 14/02839/FUL

Item 5.6 - Leith Change of use and enclosure of To GRANT planning permission Academy Primary public road to create an enclosed subject to a condition, reason and School, 3 St Andrew extension to the school playground informatives as detailed in section 3 Place, Edinburgh with two access gates of the report by the Acting Head of Application no. 15/00766/FUL Planning and Building Standards.

Item 5.7 - Millerhill Consultation from Midlothian Council To AGREE to raise no objections to Marshalling Yards, – erection of waste recycling and the application. Millerhill, Midlothian treatment facility including combined heat and power plant facility, comprising treatment buildings; office building and visitor centre; formation of access; internal circulation roads; hardstanding areas; weighbridge, car parking and associated infrastructure Application no. 15/01779/MLC

Item 6.1 - 10 Rose Installation of a mosaic sculpture To GRANT planning permission Lane, South created by the local community, at subject to informatives as detailed Queensferry (Land 18 the green/landscaped section east of in section 3 of the report by the Metres East of the the carpark Acting Head of Planning and Binks Car Park) Building Standards. Application no. 14/04969/FUL (On a division)

Item 7.1 - 8 Bridge Change of use from a residential To CONTINUE consideration of the Road, Edinburgh dwelling to a day nursery for pre- application for a site visit. school children Application no. 15/00576/FUL

Item 7.2 - 148 Change of use from a residential To NOTE that the application had Craigcrook Road, dwelling to a day nursery for pre- been withdrawn at the request of Edinburgh school children the applicant. Application no. 15/00576/FUL

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015

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

Item 7.3 – 8-16 Hillview Vary the terms of the previous To REFUSE planning permission Drive, Edinburgh consent for development of for the reasons detailed in section 3 (Land to the rear of) Plot 2 of the report by the Acting Head of Application no. 15/01086/FUL Planning and Building Standards.

Item 7.4 - 328 Proposed residential development To REFUSE planning permission in Lasswade Road, with associated infrastructure, principle for the reasons detailed in Edinburgh (Land 350 landscaping and engineering works. section 3 of the report by the Acting Metres North West of) Application no. 14/05145/PPP Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Item 7.5 – 144 Lower Erect ancillary garage and garden To CONTINUE consideration of the Granton Road, room on extended garden (as application for a site visit. Edinburgh amended) Application no. 15/01146/FUL

Item 8.1 (a) 42 Protocol Note by the Head of Legal, Noted. Gilmerton Dykes Risk and Compliance Road, Edinburgh (Land 115 Metres Southeast of)

Item 8.1 (b) – 42 Residential development of 61 units 1. To REFUSE planning Gilmerton Dykes with associated accesses, roads and permission because the Road, Edinburgh landscaping proposal does not (Land 115 Metres Application no 14/01446/FUL adequately provide for the Southeast Of) additional transport and education infrastructure required as a result of the development and as such is contrary to Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Policy 7 'Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply'. 2. To require the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to report back with the detailed reason for refusal for noting by the Sub- Committee.

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015

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

Item 10.1 - 6, 8, 13, 15, Report on forthcoming application by To note the key issues at this stage. 18-20, 21, 28 King's Peveril Securities And Campus In addition, to add West End Stables Road and 2 Development Management for a Community Council and BID Lady Wynd, Edinburgh mixed use development including Grassmarket to list of consultees flats, student accommodation, hotel and arts facility, involving new build, alteration and partial demolition of existing buildings Application no. 15/01936/PAN

Development Management Sub-Committee of the Planning Committee 20 May 2015 Development Management Sub- Committee

10am, Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 175. (Belgrave Road, Edinburgh)

Item number Report number Wards Corstorphine/Murrayfield

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO19, Single Outcome Agreement SO2, SO4,

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Steven Milne, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3531

Report

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 175. (Belgrave Road, Edinburgh) Summary

 Requests for the Council to make a Tree Preservation Order have been received from both a local resident and the Corstorphine Trust.  The trees are a prominent landscape feature and contribute significantly to the character and attractiveness of the locality.  Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 175 (Belgrave Road, Edinburgh) was made under delegated powers on 20 January 2015.  The Order protects seven sycamore, two copper beech and one cherry tree growing in the grounds of Belgrave Halls, Belgrave Road, Edinburgh. The property previously belonged to the Church of Scotland and was formerly a church with a separate hall. It was recently marketed as a development opportunity.  An objection to the making of the Order has been made on behalf of the current owner. The objection has been assessed and is addressed in the report.  The TPO No. 175 provides temporary protection to the trees in question for a period of six months. The Order needs to be confirmed by the Development Management Sub-Committee to become permanent.

1. Background

1.1 The site in question was formerly a Church of Scotland property comprising two halls, one of which is believed to have been a church. It occupies a large corner plot on the junction with Belgrave Road and Belgrave Gardens.

1.2 The trees in question consist of seven sycamore trees, two copper beech trees and one cherry tree. The trees are positioned along the western and southern boundaries of the site. There is a further single sycamore tree, but this has not been included in the Order as it is a poor specimen in poor condition. The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) map is included at Appendix 1. The trees are in early maturity and contribute significantly to the character and attractiveness of the locality.

1.3 A request for a TPO was received in 2005, but no action was considered appropriate at the time. Subsequent requests have been received. Two further requests from the Corstorphine Trust were received with evidence that the halls were actively being marketed for sale.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 10 1.4 In view of their amenity value, and to afford the trees protection should redevelopment of the site take place, a TPO was made by the Head of Planning and Building Standards under delegated powers on 20 January 2015.

2. Main report

2.1 There are a number of mature and early mature trees within the site, generally towards the west boundary and along the southern boundary. These are seven sycamore trees, two copper beech trees and one cherry tree. There is a further semi-mature sycamore tree, which is in poor health and condition that is not considered suitable for a TPO. The trees are indicated on the TPO map as; T1 an individual cherry, T2 a sycamore, G1 a close grouping of one sycamore and one copper beech, and G2 a further group consisting of one copper beech and five sycamore in a linear group along the southern boundary.

2.2 These trees are in satisfactory health and condition and are a prominent and attractive feature, contributing significantly to the attractiveness and character of the locality.

2.3 A request for a TPO to be made was received in May 2005. While recognising the amenity value of the trees, the Department’s Arboriculturist did not consider an Order to be expedient at that time. Two further requests from the Corstorphine Trust were received with evidence that the halls were actively being marketed for sale.

2.4 In view of the amenity provided by the trees, their local interest and to afford the trees protection should future redevelopment take place, it was considered expedient to make a TPO to prohibit carrying out work to the trees without the prior consent of the Council as planning authority. This allows the Council an opportunity to have regard to the impact of the proposed tree work on amenity.

2.5 Subsequently an enquiry regarding the potential redevelopment of the site was received by the Planning and Building Standards Service. The TPO would not prevent redevelopment of the site, but may potentially restrict the extent of development that could take place, in order to protect the trees on site.

2.6 A TPO was made by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on 20 January 2015 and was served on all interested parties.

2.7 On the making of the TPO, and in accordance with the Regulations, copies of the Order were served on all those with an interest in the land, an advert was placed in “The Scotsman” newspaper and a copy of the Order made available at the local library. Any person then has 28 days to object to the Order or make any other representation. One objection was received, on the grounds that (i) one tree, a sycamore was in need of felling, (ii) two of the seven sycamores in the linear group G2 were in poor condition, and (iii) that the cherry tree has limited viability in the long term. The objection letter and response are attached to this report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 10 2.8 In response, the Planning and Building Standards Service’s Arboriculturist pointed out that: (i) the sycamore which needed felling was not included in the Order for the reason of its poor condition, (ii) that the two poorer sycamore trees are components of a linear group (G2) and it is the group itself which is of high value. Any need to remove poorer trees within the group can be accommodated under the Order and the Planning Authority would have the powers to require the replacement of these trees to ensure the continuity of the amenity provided by the group, and (iii) that the cherry tree appeared in reasonable health and condition and the objector’s own tree survey assessed the tree as fair with 20 to 40 years future life expectancy. As such, removal of the cherry tree from the Order was not considered to be justified.

2.9 The TPO initially provides six months protection to the trees. Under new Regulations introduced in 2011, the Order will expire after six months unless confirmed by the Planning Authority within this period, which in this instance is before 20 June 2015. Confirmation of the Order is required to retain the TPO and provide long term protection to the trees.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Development Management Sub-Committee:  confirms Tree Preservation Order No 175 (Belgrave Road, Edinburgh).

Measures of success

The protection of prominent trees in the City that contribute to amenity and cultural heritage.

Financial impact

This report will have no financial implications.

Equalities impact

There are no adverse impacts arising from this report.

Sustainability impact

The protection of trees will have a positive impact on sustainability objectives.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 10 Consultation and engagement

The Tree Preservation Order was advertised in accordance with the Regulations in “The Scotsman” newspaper allowing 28 days for third parties to make representations. One representation was received. This representation and the Head of Planning and Building Standards’ response are enclosed.

Background reading/external references

None

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

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 Single Outcome SO2 - Edinburgh's citizens experience improved health and Agreement wellbeing, with reduced inequalities in health SO4 - Edinburgh's communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices 1. Tree preservation order map for TPO No 175 (Belgrave Road, Edinburgh) 2. Letter of objection 3. Planning authority response to objection

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 10 Appendix 1

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 10 Appendix 2

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 10

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 10 Appendix 3

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 10

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 10

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 15/01344/FUL At 7 Boswall Green, Edinburgh, EH5 2BA Proposed demolition of single storey dwelling and erection of 2 storey flatted property (containing two flats in total) (as amended)

Item number Report number

Wards A04 - Forth

Summary

The proposal is considered a suitable scale, form and design with acceptable materials for its location. The proposal complies with development plan policies and non-statutory guidelines. No other material considerations outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD3, CITH1, CITH4, CITE12, NSG, NSHOU,

this application NSGD02,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site contains a bungalow and extends to 386 square metres. Two multi-stemmed immature trees stand on the western boundary.

It lies at a transition point between bungalows (to the west and south-west) and two storey properties (to the east and north).

Gardens in the area are primarily defined by medium height hedging.

2.2 Site History

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

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a two storey building containing a flat on each floor.

The proposed building has a hipped roof form and rendered walls. The western end has a half-hip detail matching that on adjacent two storey buildings and this section is faced in buff brick. Panels around windows are created as "feature panels" using vertical cladding boards. The roof is in concrete tiles.

The upper flat is three-bedroom, the lower flat is two-bedroom. Each has a private parking space to the front and the lower unit also has an integral garage.

Each flat has a private garden area to the rear.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Scheme 1

The proposal originally had a substandard car parking layout. This was amended to allow two fully operational parking spaces.

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 density of the proposal is acceptable;

b) the scale, form, design and materials are acceptable;

c) effects upon neighbouring amenity are acceptable;

d) amenity of the proposal is adequate;

e) parking levels are adequate;

f) effects upon trees are acceptable;

g) public comments are addressed; and

h) equality and human rights issues are considered. a) The Increase in Density is Acceptable

The demolition of the existing house does not require permission. Although the development increases the number of units on site from one to two, the resultant density remains very low in relation to the city as a whole and will be less than the existing urban forms to the east.

The additional unit will not have any significant impact upon local infrastructure such as schools. b) Scale, Form and Design

The proposal closely matches the form and design of existing two storey units immediately to the east.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 11 15/01344/FUL

The proposal sits in the same location on the site as the existing house and continues to match the feuing pattern. The siting and concept comply fully with the objectives contained within the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

The proposed materials are considered to be appropriate to the location.

The design of the proposal is acceptable and fits the character of the area.

As two storey buildings of the same general scale and form already exist throughout the area the development does not constitute "a precedent".

Whilst a two storey building can be said to be "more visible" than a single storey building, this is not a reason to resist development. There are no protected views within this area, and impact upon private views is not a planning consideration.

The form and design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable. c) Effect upon Neighbouring Amenity

The proposal sits wholly within the "gable-to-gable" zone: a zone 13m deep as measured from the street frontage. As such, any lateral overshadowing is considered acceptable in policy terms, as long as the proposal otherwise fits the urban grain of the area, in accordance with Edinburgh Design Guidance. The proposal meets this requirement. As the house sits at the north end of its site, the majority of additional effects upon sunlight primarily affect only land to the north. The closest house northwards lies on the opposite side of the road, some 23m away. Effects upon its sunlight and daylight are insignificant and acceptable.

The proposed rear garden is 11m long, with an isolated garden, connecting to 104/106 Granton Road lying to its south.

The addition of windows at first floor meets the requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance in terms of privacy. These windows primarily view into the applicant's own garden and are of conventional layout. Oblique views from windows into neighbouring gardens are not considered to be a breach of policy.

The effects of the proposed development upon neighbouring amenity are all acceptable. d) Amenity of the Proposed Units

Each unit is dual aspect and will receive adequate sunlight and daylight.

Each unit has a rear garden of 8m width and 11m length which is acceptable for amenity purposes.

It is correctly stated that the upper flat will look into the garden of the lower flat on one side of the building. This is an inevitable consequence of any flatted development where garden ground is private rather than communal. The provision of private rather than communal garden ground is not a reason to resist the proposal. Occupants of the building will be aware of the layout from the outset.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 11 15/01344/FUL

The amenity level of the proposed units is acceptable. e) Parking

Parking is provided in the front garden area, lying at an angle to the street and accessed over an existing dropped kerb. Parking provision is adequate for the two proposed flats. The lower flat also has an integral garage provided.

Boswall Green does not serve large volumes of traffic. Pavement cross-overs, leading to hard-standings or garages, are a common feature of the area.

No road safety issues arise from the proposal. f) Effect Upon Trees

Two multi-stem immature trees, on the western boundary would be prejudiced by the development.

These trees are unprotected and of no significant public value to the streetscape. Their loss, should this arise, is not opposed. g) Public Comments

11 objections have been received including comments from Granton and District Community Council (as a representee rather than a consultee).

Material Comments

 the scale of the proposal is inappropriate and will set a precedent - addressed in section 3.3b) of the Assessment.  effect upon sunlight and daylight - addressed in section 3.3c) of the Assessment.  visual intrusion - addressed within section 3.3b) of the Assessment.  effect upon privacy - addressed within section 3.3c) of the Assessment.  road safety concerns - addressed within section 3.3e) of the Assessment.  concerns regarding parking provision - addressed within section 3.3e) of the Assessment.  the upper flat will look into the garden of the lower flat - addressed in section 3.3d) of the Assessment.  the development will put additional strain on local schools - addressed in section 3.3a) of the Assessment.

Non-Material Comments

 no advertisement was made of the application and no site notice was posted - This is not a requirement outwith conservation areas.  concerns regarding the proximity of the corners of the parking spaces to the house - This is not a planning concern and is simply an issue of due diligence on the part of occupants.  the upper flat rather than the lower flat should have the integral garage - there is no requirement for either flat to have an integral garage.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 11 15/01344/FUL

 access to the garage is blocked by the parking to the upper flat - this statement is incorrect.  debate regarding the property boundary in relation to the existing hedge - this is not a planning concern.  issues relating to Building Regulations - this is not a planning consideration.  the building will overshadow the pavement - this is not a planning concern.  the site is on the edge of a conservation area - the site is remote from any conservation area. h) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposals raise no equalities or human rights concerns.

Conclusion

The proposal is considered a suitable scale, form and design with acceptable materials for its location. The proposal complies with development plan policies and non- statutory guidelines. No other material considerations outweigh this conclusion.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

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

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

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application received 11 letters of objection, including objection from Granton District Community Council. Reasons for objection were:

 the scale of the proposal is inappropriate and will set a precedent;  effect upon sunlight and daylight;  visual intrusion;  effect upon privacy;  road safety concerns;  concerns regarding parking provision and proximity to the house;  no advertisement was made of the application and no site notice was posted;  concerns regarding the proximity of the corners of the parking spaces to the house;  the upper flat rather than the lower flat should have the integral garage;  access to the garage is blocked by the parking to the upper flat;  debate regarding the property boundary in relation to the existing hedge;  issues relating to Building Regulations;  the building will overshadow the pavement;  the development will put additional strain on local schools; and  the site is on the edge of a conservation area.

Councillor Day requested that the application be a Committee item. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 11 15/01344/FUL

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies within a broad area of housing defined as Urban Area as shown on the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 23 March 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1,2,3a,4,5a,6a,

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Stephen Dickson, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3529 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

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

Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.

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

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 11 15/01344/FUL

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 – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transport

No comments.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 11 15/01344/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 15/01354/FUL At 8 Ettrick Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5BJ Extend garage and raise wall head with pitched roof over incorporating bedroom/shower room.

Item number Report number

Wards A10 - Meadows/Morningside

Summary

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and preserves the character and appearance of the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area. Although it does not comply with Guidance for Householders in respect of loss of sunlight, an exception is justified in this case. There are no material considerations upon which to justify refusal of planning permission.

Links

Policies and guidance for CRPMER, CITE6, CITD11, NSHOU, NSLBCA,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 9 15/01354/FUL

Report

Application for Planning Permission 15/01354/FUL At 8 Ettrick Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5BJ Extend garage and raise wall head with pitched roof over incorporating bedroom/shower room.

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The property is a detached two-storey villa on the west side of Ettrick Road. This application site is located within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

5 October 1994 - planning permission was granted for the formation of two window openings in the kitchen and erection of a cold water storage tank housing on the roof, (application number 94/01890/FUL).

22 January 2008 - planning permission was granted for alterations to form an enlarged kitchen in to the garage, to replace the conservatory with a sun lounge, to add an en-suite shower room, and to enlarge the utility room, (application number 07/05086/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is to form a pitched roof and raised wall head over the existing garage, and to bring the front wall forward. The extension will measure 12.6m deep, extending 4.4m beyond the existing garage front. It will be 6.1m high, 2.4m higher than the existing garage. It will add a pitched roof over the garage, and the resulting valley will have a hidden platform on the east side of the new roof. The wall head on the west boundary will be increased in height by 80cms.

The front-facing window will be timber sash and case with double glazed units, and conservation-type rooflights are proposed on the north and west elevations. The walls will be harled to match the existing house, the roof will be slated, downpipes will be cast iron, and the garage door will be metal.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 9 15/01354/FUL

3.2 Determining Issues

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) There is any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area or on that of the existing house;

b) There is any adverse impact on neighbouring amenity;

c) Equalities and human rights impacts have been addressed; and

d) Public comments have been addressed. a) Impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and of the existing house

Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env6 states that development within a conservation area will be permitted which preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the conservation area and is consistent with the relevant conservation area character appraisal. The relevant character appraisal is the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area Character Appraisal (MGCACA). The spaciousness presented by the layout of the houses is referred to in MGCACA as being contributive to the character of the conservation area, as is the domestic grain, scale and building mass and the generous settings of individual houses.

The villas in Ettrick Road feature a variety of extensions and additions of differing types, styles, scales, and forms. The proposed extension will not affect the spaciousness or the setting of the house within its curtilage, as it will be 4.4m deeper than the existing garage, but no wider, and it will occupy the space between the application property and No10 Ettrick Road. The proposed extension is of a domestic scale and character, and will preserve the character of the conservation area.

Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env6 states that development within a conservation area will be permitted which demonstrates high standards of design and utilises materials appropriate to the historic environment. The extension is designed to match the pitched roof form of the existing extension and to unify that extension and the garage in appearance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 9 15/01354/FUL

The proposed materials are to match the existing house, and the use of double glazing in the front window is acceptable. The proposed extension complies with this requirement of policy Env6.

The council's non-statutory Guidance for Householders contains specific advice on 'Extension to Villas', which is relevant in this assessment. The villa guidance requires that the character of the original villa should not be adversely changed as a result of development. Development in this case affects an extension and non-original garage. The original villa will not be adversely changed as a result of this development.

Villa guidance requires that the whole building should be in character with the scale, spacing, and rhythm of the street. The proposed extension is set behind the principal elevation, and is still of a domestic scale and appearance. The neighbouring property at No 10 Ettrick Road has a large side extension. When considered with the proposed extension, this will not create the impression of a terrace, as the extensions will be read as later additions to the original buildings. Other properties in the street have had side extensions which have changed the scale, spacing, and rhythm of the street from its original character. In this case, the proposal will be sympathetic in character to these elements, albeit that that character has been compromised.

Villa guidance requires that the design approach should be subservient to the original building and relate to it. This proposal is a modest addition to the existing house which respects the pitched roof form of the existing extension and is subservient in scale. It is a domestic alteration to a domestic property.

The council's non-statutory Guidance for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas states that the aim of development should be to preserve the spatial and structural patterns of the historic fabric and the architectural features that make the conservation area significant. The proposed extension is of a domestic scale, set behind the building line, and matching the roof pitch and materials of the existing house and extension. It will preserve the spatial and structural patterns within Ettrick Road and the character and appearance of the conservation area. b) Neighbouring amenity

The proposed extension will not result in any loss of privacy. The only window within 9m of a side boundary is for a shower room which would not be expected to have transparent glazing.

The proposed extension will not cause any loss of daylight to neighbouring windows. The windows on the extension to No 10 Ettrick Road have been positioned closer to the boundary than those of the original house. As such, these windows are not afforded the same degree of protection as original windows are.

The proposed extension will not satisfy the 45 degree sunlight test in Guidance for Householders.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 9 15/01354/FUL

As a result of increasing the wall height by 80cms there will be additional overshadowing of 6.6sqm of the rear garden ground of No 10 Ettrick Road. However, the orientation of Nos 8 and 10 is such that loss of sunlight will only be an issue in the mornings. In addition, the area affected is of comparatively low amenity value. The space between the rear wall of the extension to No 10 Ettrick Road and the summerhouse belonging to 10B is shaded on three sides already, and the summerhouse itself is set within an area which is already overshadowed by the existing garage wall.

Loss of light and/or privacy to land and windows within the gable-to-gable situation is not protected, and is not assessed in this case. c) Equalities and Human Rights

This application has no impact in terms of equalities and human rights. An Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment has been completed. d) Public Comments

Material comments in objection

 Not in keeping with the character of the house - this has been addressed in the assessment - 3.3a;  Not in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area - this has been addressed in the assessment - 3.3a; and  Impact on amenity of neighbours by loss of daylight, sunlight, and privacy - 3.3b.

Non-material comments in objection

 The need for the development. It is not for the planning system to question the need for development;  This proposal will set a precedent. The planning system is not based on precedence, but on whether development is in accordance with the local plan and assessment of other material considerations;  Possible future use of the property as other than residential. The application is not for material change of use of the property. If there were to be a future material change of use of the property without planning permission, this would be a breach of planning control and could be investigated as such;  Loss of view. The planning system protects amenity, which is a public consideration. It does not seek to protect private views over another person's property; and  Disturbance during work if planning permission were granted. Noise arising from the implementation of lawful development is not controllable through the planning system.

Conclusion

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 9 15/01354/FUL

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

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

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

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 9 15/01354/FUL

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 10 April 2015. 13 representations were received, all of which were objections. These included comments from Merchiston Community Council.

The letters of representation raised the following issues;

Material Representations

 The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the house;  The proposal is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area; and  Loss of neighbouring amenity.

Non-material Representations

 The need for the development;  Setting a precedent;  Future use of the property or change of use of the property;  Loss of private view; and  Disturbance during work if planning permission were granted.

Merchiston Community Council commented on the 'poor quality' of the submitted drawings, that the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the house. that the proposal is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area, loss of sunlight, and loss of privacy. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 9 15/01354/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Date registered 23 March 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 11,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Mark Dunlop, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 469 3642 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

The Merchiston & Greenhill Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the consistent domestic grain, scale and building mass; the high quality stone built architecture of restricted height, generous scale and fine proportions enclosed by stone boundary walls and hedges which define the visual and physical seclusion of the villas; the uniformity resulting from the predominant use of traditional building materials; and the predominance of residential uses within the area.

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

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

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 9 15/01354/FUL

Appendix 1

Application for Planning Permission 15/01354/FUL At 8 Ettrick Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5BJ Extend garage and raise wall head with pitched roof over incorporating bedroom/shower room.

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 9 15/01354/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 15/00923/FUL At Car Park, 39 High Street, South Queensferry To continue to allow the use of a public parking area as a community market with the erection of gazebos on selected days in July, September and December 2015 and monthly on the last Sunday of the month from April to September 2015.

Item number Report number

Wards A01 - Almond

Summary

The proposals comply with the development plan and non-statutory policies, have no adverse effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area and have no detrimental impact on residential amenity. There are no equalities or human rights concerns and no material planning considerations that outweigh this conclusion and approval is recommended.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPRW, RWTRA2, RWR5, RWE35, RWH6, NSG,

this application NSLBCA, CRPQUE,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 11 15/00923/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application relates to an area of car parking located on the north side of South Queensferry High Street opposite the shopping parade at 42-50 High Street. The site is positioned between South Queensferry Local Office on the east side and a solicitors/estate agents to the west and contains 12 parking spaces. The site has an open outlook to the north over the Firth of Forth and towards the Forth Bridges.

South Queensferry High Street is mixed use in character with residences above shops and other commercial uses.

This application site is located within the Queensferry Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

25.10.2013 - planning permission granted to allow the use of a public parking area as a community market with the erection of twelve gazebos on selected days in August, September and December 2013 and monthly through May to September 2014, as amended (13/02603/FUL).

04.03.2015 - enforcement enquiry received regarding unauthorised open air market (15/00113/ECOU). Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is to continue to use the public parking area for a community market comprising ten stalls on selected days in July, September and December 2015 and monthly on the last Sunday of the month from April to September 2015.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 11 15/00923/FUL

No alternative car parking provision has been made for the days on which the market will operate.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposal is acceptable in principle in this location;

b) the proposals will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area;

c) the proposals will result in an unreasonable loss of neighbouring amenity;

d) the proposals will adversely affect road safety;

e) any impacts on equalities or human rights are acceptable; and

f) comments raised have been addressed. a) Principle

The application site is located within the local centre of South Queensferry in the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan where policy R5 (In-centre Retail Development) applies.

Policy R5 states that proposals for retail development will be supported on suitable sites in the defined local centre provided they are appropriate in scale and character.

The Second Proposed Local Development Plan supports new retail development within local centres where it is compatible in terms of scale and type with the centre's character and function and makes a positive contribution to the shopping environment.

The proposal is for the use of a car parking area on the main street in South Queensferry as a market with ten stalls. This will not result in a permanent increase in retail floorspace and, due to the small number of stalls and frequency, will not have a significant retail impact on the local centre. The market will potentially attract more people to the area and enliven the street scene.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 11 15/00923/FUL

The proposal is therefore acceptable in principle. b) Character and Appearance of Conservation Area

The Queensferry Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies the key characteristics of the High Street as:

 a dense medieval core with a linear settlement pattern of Scots vernacular stone built houses with riggs running north and south and a sculptural, multi-level townscape;

 its unique shoreline setting with views of the Firth of Forth and Forth Bridges; and

 its retail function with people carrying out daily regular activities and a further layer added by tourists and day-trippers.

The proposed market is in keeping with the retail character of South Queensferry High Street and this character will be enhanced by the lively nature of the market, providing a focal point for local residents and visitors alike.

The market which comprises 10 stalls will be restricted to an area currently occupied by a public car park and will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the conservation area when in operation.

The proposals will therefore preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. c) Residential Amenity

The previous planning permission for a market (ref. 13/02603/FUL) was granted for one year to judge whether it was appropriate in terms of residential amenity. During the one year trial period, no complaints of noise or odour were received by Environmental Assessment from any surrounding residents in relation to the market.

The market may be an inconvenience for the nearest residents whilst in operation. However, it will benefit the wider local community and this will outweigh any negative short term impact on residential amenity. In addition, informatives have been applied to safeguard residential amenity from operations noise and cooking odours from the market. The details of these informatives can be controlled through the management of the market.

The proposal will not therefore have an adverse effect on neighbouring residential amenity.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 11 15/00923/FUL d) Road Safety

The previously approved market had an operator's licence. The matter of road safety was addressed in the consideration of the licence application and, on that basis, Transport had no objections. Transport was consulted on the current application and has raised no objections to the proposals as there were no recorded road/public safety issues when the market took place previously. e) Impact on Equalities and Human Rights

There are no concerns regarding equalities or human rights. f) Representations

The material concerns raised are as follows:

 the site for the market is inappropriate - this has been addressed in sections 3.3 a) and b). The site is a public car park within the local centre of South Queensferry.

 noise and disturbance - this has been addressed in section 3.3 c).The benefits of the market will outweigh any inconvenience on days of operation. Informatives have been applied to protect residential amenity from noise and disturbance on market operation days.

 cooking odours - this has been addressed in section 3.3 c). An informative has been applied to ensure cooking odours from the market are kept as far from nearby residences as possible.

 road/public safety due to barriers reducing road width - this has been addressed in section 3.3 d). Transport received no complaints regarding road/public safety whilst the market was in operation previously.

 loss of parking spaces - this has been addressed in section 3.3 d). Transport has raised no objections to the proposals on these grounds. The market will only operate once a month until September and on other specific days in July, September and December and this temporary loss of parking is acceptable.

 road closures - this has been addressed in section 3.3 d). Transport has raised no objections to the proposals and any road closures will be sporadic and temporary.

The other comments relating to the impact on existing shops, litter and loading facilities are non-material in planning terms.

Conclusion

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 11 15/00923/FUL

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. The hours of the market, including the setting up and dismantling of stalls and equipment, shall be restricted to between the hours of 0900-2000 hours.

2. All music and vocals, amplified or otherwise, shall be so controlled as to be inaudible within any neighbouring premises.

3. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment.

4. Food stalls shall be set up in a location on the site so as to ensure that cooking odours are kept as far away as possible from any nearby residential properties.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 11 15/00923/FUL

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 20 March 2015. 14 letters of objection were received. The following issues have been raised:

Material objections

 inappropriate site;  noise and disturbance;  cooking odours;  road/public safety due to barriers reducing road width;  loss of parking spaces;  road closures; and  traffic disruption in High Street when market being set up.

Non-material comments

 impact on existing shops;  litter; and  loading facilities.

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 11 15/00923/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The application site is within the Settlement Boundary of South Queensferry.

Date registered 10 March 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

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

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan.

Policy TRA2 states that proposals will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the existing road network; public transport operations; air quality; road safety, residential amenity and walking and cycling.

Policy R5 says that proposals for retail development will be supported on suitable sites in the defined local centres and frontages identified in Policy R1.

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 11 15/00923/FUL

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

The Queensferry Conservation Area Character Appraisal emphasises the importance of the medieval core, the settlement pattern of stone built houses with their lang riggs, and the strong Scots vernacular character of the architecture.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 11 15/00923/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

The application proposes to operate a market within a parking area situated at High Street, South Queensferry. Residential properties situated to the north overlook the site.

Application 13/02603/FUL previously sought consent for the operation of a market which was granted subject to a one year trial at the site. That consent has now expired and this application proposes to make the market operations permanent. During the one year trial period, no complaints of noise or odour were received by the Council from any surrounding residents in relation to the market operations.

Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development. However it is recommended that the same informatives designed to protect amenity, which were attached to the previous consent, are also attached to this consent. Those informatives are listed below:

1. Food stalls shall be set up in a location on the site so as to ensure that cooking odours are kept as far away as possible from any nearby residential properties.

2. The hours of the market, including the setting up and dismantling of stalls and equipment, shall be restricted to between the hours of 0900-2000 hours.

3. All music and vocals, amplified or otherwise, shall be so controlled as to be inaudible within any neighbouring premises.

4. The design, installation and operation of any plant, machinery or equipment shall be such that any associated noise complies with NR25 when measured within any nearby living apartment.

Transport Planning

No objections to the application.

Note:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 11 15/00923/FUL

As the Market already takes place at this location and there have been no recorded issues there is no objection for further markets to take place.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 11 15/00923/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Advert Consent 15/01869/ADV Bus Shelter Advertising Panels, Princes Street, Edinburgh Double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters comprising full motion digital screens on outer faces and static LED backlit paper adverts on inner faces.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposed advertising displays comply with Regulation 4 (1) of the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984. The proposed displays are acceptable in terms of the interests of amenity and public safety and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

Links

Policies and guidance for NSADSP, CRPNEW, CRPWHS,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application proposals relate to six existing bus shelter locations on the northern side of Princes Street situated between South Charlotte Street and Frederick Street. Each shelter incorporates double sided static advertising poster displays that in the majority of cases are located at each end of the shelter. A single digital advertisement panel is currently in-situ at shelter location 206220; installed as part of a digital advertising trial. The bus shelters are situated adjacent to a continuous built frontage which contains the following listed buildings:

129 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 29516 and listed on 20 February 1985).

127 and 128 Princes Street which are category B listed (LB reference:- 29515 and listed on 20 February 1985).

123 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 29513 and listed on 20 February 1985).

119, 119A and 120 Princes Street which are category B listed (LB reference:- 43326 and listed on 28 March 1996).

118 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 43325 and listed on 28 March 1996).

112 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 29512 and listed on 13 April 1965).

109, 110 and 111 Princes Street which are category B listed (LB reference 30147 and listed on 12 December 1974).

106 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 43324 and listed on 28 March 1996).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 12 15/01869/ADV

104 and 105 Princes Street which are category B listed (LB reference:- 29511 and listed on 20 February 1985).

99B, 100 and 100A Princes Street which are category B listed (LB reference:- 29510 and listed on 20 February 1985).

The application site lies within the New Town Conservation Area and Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

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

2.2 Site History

14/03840/ADV: Advertisement Consent was granted to display double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters in 6 locations on Princes Street on 11 February 2015. Each advertising panel comprised a full motion digital screen on their outer face and a static LED backlit paper advert on their inner face. The Advertisement Consent specified through a condition that the digital screens should display static images only.

15/01270/ADV & 15/01271/ADV: Advertisement Consent (as described above) granted 29 April 2015 to display adverts without a condition restricting the display to static images only i.e. allowing advertising content containing movement and motion images. Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application promotes the display of advertisements at 6 locations on Princes Street. The proposed advertising panels are integral to new bus shelters being installed through the Council's advertising contract with JC Decaux Ltd and are located at:

Bus Shelter reference 206165 adjacent to 129-130 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206170 adjacent to 121-123 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206180 adjacent to 118- 119a Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206210 adjacent to 109 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206220 adjacent to 106 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206225 adjacent to 101 Princes Street.

The proposed advertising panels are double-sided and comprise a full motion digital screen on their outer face and a static LED backlit panel for the display of paper adverts on their inner face i.e. 12 display panels in total. The display housing measures 2.48 metres high, 1.33 metres wide and 0.24 metres deep and includes a visible screen area of 1.90 square metres. The advertising panels are to be set back 600mm from the kerb and incorporate glazed viewing panels to both the leading and trailing ends of the shelter to allow passengers to view approaching buses.

This application is seeking Advertisement Consent only. The installation of the bus shelters is being progressed under the Council's 'permitted development' powers.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 12 15/01869/ADV

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals affect the amenity of the locality? In the determination of the suitability of the site for the display of advertisements, the Planning Authority shall have regard to the general characteristics of the locality including the presence of any feature of historical, architectural, cultural or similar interest. The authority may disregard any advertisements displayed in the locality.

Do the proposals affect public safety? The Planning Authority shall in particular consider whether any such display is likely to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal, or aid to navigation by water or air.

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposed advertising displays will have an unacceptable impact on amenity;

b) the proposal would compromise public safety; and

c) the proposal would have any equalities or human rights impacts. a) Amenity

The application promotes the installation of advertising display panels in visually prominent locations in the New Town Conservation Area and Edinburgh World Heritage Site (WHS).

The Council's guidance on Advertising, Sponsorship and City Dressing states that digital advertising within the WHS will normally only be acceptable as an integral part of a bus shelter. Advertising on bus shelters is well established on Princes Street and throughout the City. The advertising locations promoted by this application all lie within a defined town centre and adjacent to core shopping frontages that will provide a commercial backdrop to the proposed displays.

The application proposals are identical to those promoted, and approved, under application reference 14/03840/ADV except in one respect i.e. the ability to display advertisements that contain movement and motion. The sub-committee at its meeting on 29 April 2015 granted Advertisement Consent to proposals such as this at two locations on Princes Street, immediately adjacent to Princes Mall. In summary, the proposal is to replace existing static double-sided advertising panels with a part digital/part static display of a comparable size.

The shelters/display panels are all to be positioned adjacent to the kerb, an arrangement in keeping with the linearity of the street. The shelters are considered subservient elements within the street scene and the proposed advertising displays would not be disruptive to key views or the setting of adjacent listed buildings.

The position and orientation of the displays would not result in a detrimental impact to amenity and comply with the Council guidance on Advertising, Sponsorship and City Dressing.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 12 15/01869/ADV b) Public Safety

The Head of Transport has advised that he has no objections to the application proposals subject to the addition of informatives to the Advertising Consent that address the detailed operation of the advert displays and information regarding working within the Edinburgh Tram Hazard Zone.

The Head of Transport notes that whilst there is a general presumption against the display of adverts containing full motion digital images on public (road) safety grounds he has raised no objections to this application on the basis that there has been a trial of full motion advertising displays at bus stop locations on Princes Street. The trial was undertaken with the Council's previous advertising partner in 2012/13 and tested the use of six levels/speed of motion on road safety. The trial was considered to be successful and did not raise any concerns in terms of road safety; in addition to Council interests, bus and taxi operators and Police Scotland were involved in the trial. The operation of the digital display screens can be fully controlled through the provisions of the Council's contract with the applicant. Accordingly, the application proposals do not raise public safety concerns.

In the interests of amenity and public safety it is considered appropriate to limit the intensity of illumination of the advert displays to 75 candelas per square metre. c) Equalities and Human Rights

This application has no impacts in terms of equalities and human rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Regulation 4 (1) of the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 states that advertisement control shall be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

The application proposals do not adversely affect the amenity of the location or raise issues in respect of public safety. The proposals accord with the Council's guidance on Advertising, Sponsorship and City Dressing. The application proposals are acceptable and approval of Advertisement Consent is recommended subject to the conditions and informatives set out below.

There are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Consent is granted for a period of five years from the date of consent.

2. The intensity of illumination of the advertisement display shall be restricted to 75 candelas per square metre during night time hours, these hours being 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise each day.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Reasons:-

1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.

2. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. Day time levels of luminance may need to be higher than night time levels, this should be controlled by light sensors to measure the ambient brightness and dimmers to control the lighting output is within acceptable limits.

2. The City of Edinburgh Council acting as Roads Authority reserves the right under Section 93 of The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to adjust the intensity of any non-adopted lighting applicable to the application address.

3. The proposed site is on or adjacent to the Edinburgh Tram which is now operational. Tram power lines are over 5m above the tracks and do not pose a danger to pedestrians and motorists at ground level or to those living and working in the vicinity of the tramway. However, the applicant should be informed that there are potential dangers and, prior to commencing work near the tramway, a safe method of working must be agreed with the Council and authorisation to work obtained. Authorisation is needed for any of the following works either on or near the tramway:

 Any work where part of the site such as tools, materials, machines, suspended loads or where people could enter the Edinburgh Tram Hazard Zone. For example, window cleaning or other work involving the use of ladders;  Any work which could force pedestrians or road traffic to be diverted into the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone;  Piling, using a crane, excavating more than 2m or erecting and dismantling scaffolding within 4m of the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone;  Any excavation within 3m of any pole supporting overhead lines;  Any work on sites near the tramway where vehicles fitted with cranes, tippers or skip loaders could come within the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone when the equipment is in use; and  The Council has issued guidance to residents and businesses along the tram route and to other key organisations who may require access along the line.

See our full guidance on how to get permission to work near a tram way: http://edinburghtrams.com/community/working-around-trams

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The Council has entered into an Advertising Contract with JC Decaux Ltd through which all advertising hoardings on council-owned land and street furniture, principally bus shelters, will be replaced with new and improved infrastructure. As a consequence the Council expects to benefit from increased revenues as new and improved advertising opportunities come into operation. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

There have been representations received. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh City Local Plan - Central Area, City Centre Retail Core, Conservation Area, World Heritage Site. Adjacent to Core Shopping Frontage and Tram Route Safeguard.

Date registered 21 April 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 08 inclusive,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Andrew Sikes, Team Manager E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 469 3412 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Non-statutory guidelines 'ADVERTISEMENTS, SPONSORSHIP AND CITY DRESSING' Provides guidance on proposals for advertisements, imposing restrictions on adverts on street furniture, hoardings, and at the roadside, and outlining the circumstances in which sponsorship, city dressing, banners and adverts on scaffolding should be acceptable.

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

World Heritage Site

The historic centre of Edinburgh, including the medieval Old Town and the Georgian New Town, was inscribed on the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO’s) List of World Heritage Sites in December, 1995. This represents international recognition that the Site is of outstanding universal value.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 12 15/01869/ADV

The organic plan form of the medieval Old Town and the clarity of the geometrically planned neo-classical New Town together with the outstanding historic buildings are fundamental characteristics of the World Heritage Site. All proposals affecting the plan form or historic buildings, including their setting, will be considered for their impact on their design integrity.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transportation

It is understood that, further to the decision issued by the Council in respect of 14/03840/ADV, this application has been submitted to remove the restriction on full motion digital adverts.

Whilst it is this case that full motion is generally objected to on road safety grounds there are no objections to these applications. This is because the small format signs are on the trailing end of the bus shelter facing away from oncoming vehicles (and, as such, they are targeted at pedestrians on the footway walking east or those waiting at the stop outside the shelter).Whilst the signs will be visible to drivers on the opposite carriageway heading east it is considered that these small format signs are unlikely to cause a distraction to these drivers (however note underlined section in paragraph below).

There was a trial undertaken of full motion adverts on bus stops towards the end of the contract with the council's previous advertising partner. A report on this trial from this Council's Corporate Property division is attached as an appendix to this response. It is understood that there were 6 levels of motion used in the trial, and that the levels to be used at these, and other JCDecaux bus shelters, can be controlled through the council's contract with the applicant. It is recommended that initially the lowest levels of motion within the adverts are permitted and the appropriate final level of motion (i.e. the most to be permitted) is agreed in writing with the Head of Transport.

Should you be minded to issue consent to these applications please also include the following as informatives on the permission-

1. Night time levels of luminance should be based on the luminance of other signs and surfaces in the area. Typical values in urban areas would be in the range of 75- 300Cd/m²; 2. Day time levels of luminance may need to be higher, this should be controlled by light sensors to measure the ambient brightness and dimmers to control the lighting output is within acceptable limits; 3. The City of Edinburgh Council acting as Roads Authority reserves the right under Section 93 of The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to adjust the intensity of any non- adopted lighting applicable to the application address.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 12 15/01869/ADV

The following note regarding works in the vicinity of the tram also requires to be included in any permission-

The proposed site is on or adjacent to the Edinburgh Tram which is now operational. Tram power lines are over 5m above the tracks and do not pose a danger to pedestrians and motorists at ground level or to those living and working in the vicinity of the tramway. However, the applicant should be informed that there are potential dangers and, prior to commencing work near the tramway, a safe method of working must be agreed with the Council and authorisation to work obtained. Authorisation is needed for any of the following works either on or near the tramway: Any work where part of the site such as tools, materials, machines, suspended loads or where people could enter the Edinburgh Tram Hazard Zone. For example, window cleaning or other work involving the use of ladders; Any work which could force pedestrians or road traffic to be diverted into the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone; Piling, using a crane, excavating more than 2m or erecting and dismantling scaffolding within 4m of the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone; Any excavation within 3m of any pole supporting overhead lines; Any work on sites near the tramway where vehicles fitted with cranes, tippers or skip loaders could come within the Edinburgh Trams Hazard Zone when the equipment is in use; The Council has issued guidance to residents and businesses along the tram route and to other key organisations who may require access along the line. See our full guidance on how to get permission to work near a tram way http://edinburghtrams.com/community/working-around-trams

Appendix to full motion bus shelter applications

Report from CEC Corporate Property into trial of full motion adverts at bus shelters.

Small Format Advertising Trial - Princes Street & Morningside Road.

The trial progressed in stages as follows:-

Stage 1, Princes Street (Static) -

This comprised two 6-sheet digital units, with Planning endorsing the principle of the trial in June 2012. Prior to the trial commencing, a meeting was held November 2012 on site with representatives from Transport, Road Safety, Police and Lothian Buses during which Clear Channel showed a selection of advertisements to gauge possible impact on passing traffic.

Stage 2, Princes Street (Motion & movement) -

A similar meeting was held prior to the launch of Stage 2 when again Clear Channel provided a series of advertisements, at this meeting held 11/1/13 tolerance for speed of motion and movement were agreed, with proviso that there could be advertisements that fall out of the criteria due to the combination of colour & movement.

Stage 3, Morningside Road -

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 12 15/01869/ADV

A site meeting was held with Transport & Clear Channel; the screen faced away from oncoming traffic and due to surrounding buildings was screened from traffic approaching in opposite direction.

Stage 4, Final Review -

A final meeting was held was held with Clear Channel on 9/1/14 at which a draft report was published. The bottom line was the Council received no comments about any of the three digital screens and only limited motion and movement shown on the Morningside Road screen. The trial also proved the worth of the Council being able to publicise events and news items on the screens.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 12 15/01869/ADV

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Advert Consent 15/01870/ADV Bus Shelter Advertising Panels, Princes Street, Edinburgh Double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters comprising full motion digital screens on outer faces and static LED backlit paper adverts on inner faces.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

Links

Policies and guidance for NSADSP, CRPNEW, CRPWHS,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 12 15/01870/ADV

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application proposals relate to five existing bus shelter locations on the northern side of Princes Street situated between Hanover Street and West Register Street. Each shelter incorporates double sided static advertising poster displays that in the majority of cases are located at each end of the shelter. The exceptions are shelter locations 206530 and 206472 which feature a scrolling display to the leading outer face of the panel and a single digital advertisement display panel, respectively. The panel at location 206472 was installed as part of a trial of digital advertising on Princes Street. The bus shelters are situated adjacent to a continuous built frontage which contains the following listed buildings:

60 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 30145 and listed on 12 December 1974).

47-52 Princes Street which is category A listed (LB reference:- 29505 and listed on 14 December 1970).

19-20 Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 29502 and listed 20 February 1985).

16-18(inclusive) Princes Street which is category B listed (LB reference:- 29501 and listed 12 December 1974).

10-15 (inclusive) Princes Street which is category C listed (LB reference:- 43313 and listed on 28 March 1996).

The application proposals lie within the New Town Conservation Area and Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 12 15/01870/ADV

2.2 Site History

14/03885/ADV: Advertisement Consent was granted to display double-sided advertising panels integral to bus shelters in 5 locations on Princes Street on 11 February 2015. Each advertising panel comprised a full motion digital screen on their outer face and a static LED backlit paper advert on their inner face. The Advertisement Consent specified through a condition that the digital screens should display static images only.

Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application promotes the display of advertisements at 5 locations on Princes Street. The proposed advertising panels are integral to new bus shelters being installed through the Council's advertising contract with JC Decaux Ltd and are located at:

Bus Shelter reference 206469 adjacent to 62 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206470 adjacent to 54-58 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206472 adjacent to Jenners Store, 53 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206530 adjacent to 16-18 Princes Street. Bus Shelter reference 206531 adjacent to 10-15 Princes Street.

The proposed advertising panels are double-sided and comprise a full motion digital screen on their outer face and a static LED backlit panel for the display of paper adverts on their inner face i.e. 10 display panels in total. The display housing measures 2.48 metres high, 1.33 metres wide and 0.24 metres deep and includes a visible screen area of 1.90 square metres. The advertising panels are to be set back 600mm from the kerb and incorporate glazed viewing panels to both the leading and trailing ends of the shelter to allow passengers to view approaching buses.

This application is seeking Advertisement Consent only. The installation of the bus shelters is being progressed under the Council's 'permitted development' powers.

3.2 Determining Issues

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 12 15/01870/ADV

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposed advertising displays will have an unacceptable impact on amenity;

b) the proposal would compromise public safety; and

c) the proposal would have any equalities or human rights impacts. a) Amenity

The application promotes the installation of advertising display panels in visually prominent locations in the New Town Conservation Area and Edinburgh World Heritage Site (WHS).

The application proposals are identical to those promoted, and approved, under application reference 14/03885/ADV except in one respect i.e. the ability to display advertisements that contain movement and motion. The sub-committee at its meeting on 29 April 2015 granted Advertisement Consent to proposals such as this at two locations on Princes Street, immediately adjacent to Princes Mall. In summary, the proposal is to replace existing static double-sided advertising panels with a part digital/part static display of a comparable size.

The position and orientation of the displays would not result in a detrimental impact to amenity and comply with the Council guidance on Advertising, Sponsorship and City Dressing. b) Public Safety

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 12 15/01870/ADV

The trial was undertaken with the Council's previous advertising partner in 2012/13 and tested the use of six levels/speed of motion on road safety. The trial was considered to be successful and did not raise any concerns in terms of road safety; in addition to Council interests, bus and taxi operators and Police Scotland were involved in the trial. The operation of the digital display screens can be fully controlled through the provisions of the Council's contract with the applicant. Accordingly, the application proposals do not raise public safety concerns.

This application has no impacts in terms of equalities and human rights.

Conclusion

There are no material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Consent is granted for a period of five years from the date of consent.

Reasons:-

1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.

2. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 12 15/01870/ADV

See our full guidance on how to get permission to work near a tram way: http://edinburghtrams.com/community/working-around-trams

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 12 15/01870/ADV

Equalities impact

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

There have been representations received. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 12 15/01870/ADV

Statutory Development Plan Provision - Edinburgh City Local Plan - Central Area, City Centre Retail Core, Conservation Area, World Heritage Site. Adjacent to Core Shopping Frontage and Tram Route Safeguard.

Date registered 21 April 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 07 inclusive,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Andrew Sikes, Team Manager E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 469 3412 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

World Heritage Site

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 12 15/01870/ADV

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 12 15/01870/ADV

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transportation

It is understood that, further to the decision issued by the Council in respect of 14/03885/ADV, this application has been submitted to remove the restriction on full motion digital adverts.

Should you be minded to issue consent to these applications please also include the following as informatives on the permission-

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 12 15/01870/ADV

The following note regarding works in the vicinity of the tram also requires to be included in any permission-

Appendix to full motion bus shelter applications

Report from CEC Corporate Property into trial of full motion adverts at bus shelters.

Small Format Advertising Trial - Princes Street & Morningside Road.

The trial progressed in stages as follows:-

Stage 1, Princes Street (Static) -

Stage 2, Princes Street (Motion & movement) -

Stage 3, Morningside Road -

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 12 15/01870/ADV

A site meeting was held with Transport & Clear Channel; the screen faced away from oncoming traffic and due to surrounding buildings was screened from traffic approaching in opposite direction.

Stage 4, Final Review -

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 12 15/01870/ADV Development Management Sub- Committee

10am, Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 174. (Redhall House, Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh)

Item number Report number Wards Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart

Links

Coalition pledges Council outcomes CO19, Single Outcome Agreement SO2, SO4,

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Steven Milne, Planning Officer E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: 0131 529 3531

Report

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No. 174. (Redhall House, Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh) Summary

 A Tree Preservation Order (TPO167) was previously made by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and was confirmed by the Sub-Committee on16 January 2013. There was however an error in the schedule of the Order which meant it could not be registered with the Registers of Scotland and had to be remade.  Tree Preservation Order No. 174 (Redhall House, Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh) was made provisionally under delegated powers on 7 January 2015.  The trees contribute significantly to character and attractiveness of the locality and are also of cultural and historic value.  The provisional Tree Preservation Order provides temporary protection to the trees in question but the Order needs to be confirmed by the Sub-Committee to become permanent.

1. Background

1.1 A Tree Preservation Order (TPO No. 167) was previously made by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and was confirmed by the Sub-Committee on 16 January 2013. There was however an error in the Order which meant it could not be registered with the Registers of Scotland as required by legislation.

1.2 In view of the landscape, historic and cultural importance of the trees a new Order (TPO No. 174) has been made.

1.3 The trees in question are growing in open space on the site of Redhall House, Redhall House Drive and the former Graysmill School (now developed for residential use and known as Redhall House Avenue). The trees contribute significantly to the character and attractiveness of the locality and are also of cultural and historic value due to their great age and association with Redhall House.

1.4 The land was formerly owned by the Council. The former Graysmill School site was sold to Miller Homes and Redhall House was sold to a private buyer.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 5 2. Main report

2.1 The trees comprise an avenue of 25 trees in early maturity planted along the access road to Redhall House and eight mostly large mature open grown former parkland trees some of which are considered to be over 250 years old. The trees are shown on the TPO map at Appendix 1. The trees are a prominent and attractive feature of the locality which is also a well used route for walkers accessing the Water of Leith.

2.2 A Tree Preservation Order (TPO No. 167) was made after requests were received in October 2009 from local residents and from a local councillor, Gordon Buchan.

2.3 The trees had also previously been identified in the Redhall House Development Brief as being of considerable value which recommended the making of a tree preservation order to protect them.

2.4 Although not considered to be under immediate threat, the trees were of considerable amenity value and the Head of Planning and Building Standards made a provisional tree preservation order (TPO No. 167) under delegated powers on 4 March 2010.

2.5 The Order was confirmed by the Sub-Committee on 16 January 2013.

2.6 There was however an error in the Order with the land title description which meant it would not be registered by the Registers of Scotland. Registration is required under legislation and without this the Order would have been open to legal challenge.

2.7 When this error was discovered, and in view of the landscape, historic and cultural value of the trees and their contribution to amenity a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO No. 174) was made under delegated powers by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on 7 January 2015.

2.8 On the making of the Tree Preservation Order and in accordance with regulations, copies of the Order were served on all those with an interest in the land, a notice placed in The Scotsman newspaper and a copy of the Order left at the local library. Any person then has 28 days to object to the order or make any other representation. No objections or representations have been received.

2.9 This TPO (TPO No. 174) provides six months protection to the trees. Under Regulations, the Order expires after six months unless confirmed by the Planning Authority within this period, i.e. by 07 July 2015. Confirmation of the Order is required to retain the TPO and provide long term protection to the trees.

3. Recommendations

3.1 It is recommended that the Development Management Sub-Committee:  confirms Tree Preservation Order No 174 (Redhall House, Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 5 Measures of success

The protection of prominent trees in the City that contribute to amenity and cultural heritage.

Financial impact

This report will have no financial implications.

Equalities impact

There are no adverse impacts arising from this report.

Sustainability impact

The protection of trees will have a positive impact on sustainability objectives.

Consultation and engagement

The Tree Preservation Order was advertised in accordance with the Regulations in “The Scotsman” newspaper allowing 28 days for third parties to make representations. No representations were received. Background reading/external references

None

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

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 Single Outcome SO2 - Edinburgh's citizens experience improved health and Agreement wellbeing, with reduced inequalities in health SO4 - Edinburgh's communities are safer and have improved physical and social fabric Appendices 1. Tree Preservation Order map for TPO No 174 (Redhall House, Redhall House Drive, Edinburgh)

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 5 Appendix 1

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 5

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/02158/FUL At 181 - 183 Canongate, Edinburgh, EH8 8BN Alterations including installation of twin 150mm diameter flue ducts to rear elevation and change of use of existing shop premises (Class 1 Shops) to form restaurant (Class 3 Food and Drink). (Amended description)

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposals comply with the development plan and Edinburgh planning guidelines. The proposed change of use would not adversely affect the character of the Speciality Shopping Street or that of the locality. The proposed change of use would not result in adverse impacts to the amenity of neighbours or result in transport impacts. The proposed alterations would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area or the setting of listed buildings. The proposals would not raise equalities or human rights impacts.

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 20.05.2015.

This application was continued.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Links

Policies and guidance for CITD11, CITD12, CITE4, CITE3, CITE6, CITCA1,

this application CITR11, CITR12, NSG, NSLBCA, NSBUS, CRPOLD,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The application property comprises a double ground floor commercial unit within 4-5 storey tenemental blocks to the north side of Canongate. Residential properties are located to the upper floors.

Nos. 183-187 (Odd nos.) Canongate are category B listed (LB reference:-28434, Date of listing 14 December 1970). Dated 1677 but predominantly rebuilt,1956 by Robert Hurd. No. 181 Canongate the east is unlisted.

The frontage to No.181 is setback from that on No.183, being situated within a covered arcade. A pend to leading to Gladstone Court to the rear is situated immediately to the east of No.181.

Both buildings feature a painted harl finish (cream and terracotta) to their rear elevations, with single storey outshot featuring pantiled roof.

The application property is located within a designated Speciality Shopping Street and features a mix of Class 1 retail uses, these interspersed with Class 3, Food and Drink uses, residential, office and public buildings.

The property lies in the Old Town Conservation Area and Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

2.2 Site History

30 July 1997 - Planning permission granted for change of use from unoccupied office to shop (Application reference;- 97/00978/FUL).

13 March 1996 - Permission granted for a temporary change of use from retail to office for approx. 6 months (Application reference;- 96/00008/CEC).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 16 14/02158/FUL

30 March 1994 - Permission granted for change of use from retail unit to offices (in retrospect) (Application reference;- 94/0377/FUL).

Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes a change of use to the ground floor commercial unit from Class 1 (Shops) to Class 3 (Food and Drink).

External alterations would comprise the installation of twin flue ducts (150mm diameter) to the rear elevation of the listed 183 Canongate, these rising from the roof of the single storey outshot to a position above the eaves of the main building. The rear outshot would house the proposed ventilation plant.

Minor internal alterations are identified within the listed interior of No.181, although these cannot be determined within the scope of this planning application.

No external changes are identified for the shopfronts or advertising.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposed change of use is acceptable;

b) the proposal would be detrimental to neighbour amenity;

c) the proposed alterations are acceptable and would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of listed buildings;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 16 14/02158/FUL

d) the proposals would result in transport impacts;

e) the proposals raise equalities or human rights impacts; and

f) that representations have been addressed. a) Change of use

The application property lies within a Speciality Shopping Street as designated in the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP). Policy Ret 11 states that applications for changes of use should consider whether the proposal would be to the detriment of its special shopping character, and where located within a predominantly commercial area whether the units would be compatible with the character of the area.

The section of frontage in which the application premises are situated comprises mainly Class 1 retail uses to the ground floors with residential uses above. A single Class 3 use is evident within the frontage with the Tolbooth Tavern public house situated to the east. Commercial uses form part of the established character of the wider street with Class 1 retail and Class 3 Food and Drink uses interspersed with residential uses, office and public buildings.

It is considered that the proposed introduction of a Class 3 food and drink use within this property would complement the mix of uses evident within the street and would not be to the detriment of its special shopping character. The proposed change of use would also maintain the premises for small business use and there is no clear justification to retain the unit in shop use to meet local needs. The proposal would therefore meet the requirements of ECLP Policy Ret 11, parts c) and d).

Policy Ret 12 states that the change of use of a shop unit or other premises to a licensed or unlicensed restaurant or café will not be permitted if it is likely to lead to an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance, on-street activity or anti social behaviour to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents. Impacts on the amenity and living conditions of neighbours are further addressed in section 3.3b) of the report. There are a range of Class 3 Food and Drink uses in the locality, including cafes, restaurants, public houses and hot food takeaways, which form part of its mixed use character. However, it is not considered that this proposed change of use would lead to an excessive concentration of such uses to the detriment of living conditions of nearby residents.

The nature of the proposal would be supported by ECLP Policy Ca 1 in that the development would maintain and enhance the attractiveness, vitality and viability of the city centre, and a mix of uses appropriate to the location of the site and surrounding area.

In summary, the proposed use would not be detrimental to the character of the speciality shopping street or the locality, would not result in an excessive concentration of such uses or be detrimental to the living conditions of nearby residents.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 16 14/02158/FUL b) Residential Amenity

Environmental Assessment has commented on the proposals and reviewed the Noise Assessment submitted by the applicant. This document has considered the potential noise impacts from the operation of a Class 3 use, including the operation of the proposed ventilation plant.

The Noise Assessment has identified that noise attenuation measures such as insulation to the internal ceilings and ventilation plant would maintain acceptable levels of amenity to the residential properties above the application premises.

The proposed ventilation ducting would be placed on the rear elevation allowing cooking odours to be exhausted at roof level away from residential properties, this being similar to comparable situations across the city. The proposed arrangements for ventilation are considered acceptable.

The operation of a Class 3 use, including opening hours and the sale of alcohol would be controlled through the licensing regime. The application site is situated within the Central Area, which is characterised by a mix of uses including food and drink premises interspersed with commercial and residential properties.

It is not considered that the proposed nature of the Class 3 restaurant use would result in an unacceptable increase in noise, disturbance, on-street activity or anti social behaviour to the detriment of living conditions for nearby residents. The proposal would therefore meet the requirements of ECLP Policies Ret 12 and Des 11 in that they would not be detrimental to neighbourhood amenity and character.

It is recommended that prior to the use being taken up, the extract flue and ventilation system are fully operational and this matter will be controlled through condition. Measures relating to noise protection and the installation of ducting will be highlighted to the applicant through informative.

In summary, the proposed change of use and nature of the alterations would not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbours. An appropriate range of mitigation measures have been identified and the proposals are acceptable. c) Conservation Area Character and Setting of Listed Buildings

The Old Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies the following in relation to the application site;-

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

The survival of the little altered medieval 'herringbone' street pattern of narrow closes, wynds and courts leading off the spine formed by the Royal Mile.

The many important vistas and views in, out and within the area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 16 14/02158/FUL

The stepped, and pitched angled roofscape articulated by narrow dormers, crow stepped gables, pediments, towers, spires, skews, chimney heads to provide interest.

The external alterations are limited to twin flue ducts to the rear elevation of the listed No. 183 Canongate. Whilst the rear elevation of the building is visible in views from the north including from the New Waverley development site, the presence of the proposed flues could be effectively mitigated through the use of an appropriate colour scheme to match that of the adjacent painted harled finish. This matter could be dealt with by condition. Although the highest point of the flues would project above the level of the eaves, this would not be detrimental to the architectural features of the listed building or the character of the roofscape.

No proposals for external signage have been identified as part of the application. The requirement for additional permissions, e.g. Advertisement Consent, will be highlighted through an informative.

The nature of the proposal would accord with Council guidance and would not adversely affect the setting of the listed building or the character and appearance of the conservation area. d) Transport

No dedicated parking is identified as part of the proposal. However, it is not considered that the nature of the proposed Class 3 use would generate additional levels of traffic. The area is also subject to on-street parking restrictions, including single yellow lines and controlled parking bays.

Private parking spaces and service access are also available in Gladstone Court to the rear of the building.

The proposed change of use would not result in adverse transport impacts. e) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposals would not raise equalities or human rights issues. f) Representations

Material considerations

 Erosion of retail character and over provision of food and drink uses- addressed in section 3.3a) of the report.  Increase in noise and disturbance to residents arising from proposed restaurant use, particularly arising from evening trading - addressed in sections 3.3a) and b) of the report.  Parking issues, increase in traffic levels and congestion -addressed in section 3.3d) of the report.  Loss of amenity to residents arising from plant noise, cooking odours and waste storage - addressed in section 3.3b).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Non-material considerations

 Drainage issues, with problems exacerbated by proposed commercial cooking and waste process - not a material planning consideration.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed change of use would not adversely affect the character of the Speciality Shopping Street or that of the locality or result in adverse impacts to the amenity of neighbours. The proposed alterations would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area or the setting of listed buildings.

Addendum to Assessment

The application was considered at the Development Management Sub-Committee on 20 May 2015.

Committee continued the application.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Prior to the use being taken up, the extract flue and ventilation system, capable of 30 air changes per hour, as show on drawing no. 03 dated May 2014 is to be implemented.

2. That the finish to the external flue ducts be coloured to match that of the adjacent rear elevation. Details to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of works on site.

Reasons:-

1. In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and other occupiers.

2. In order to safeguard visual amenity.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 16 14/02158/FUL

4. The following noise protection measures to the proposed unit, as defined in the Ethos 'Environmental Noise Assessment' report (Ref P6075), dated January 2015:

Ceiling treatments

 A suspended metal frame independent ceiling with at least a 50mm mineral wool quilt. This shall be hung on resilient fixings to provide 8-12dB airborne and 8- 15dB impact sound insulation improvements.

 Only small cable services should penetrate through the ceiling; these and perimeter gaps should be sealed with an acoustic sealant.

 Down-lighters installed in the suspended ceiling, they must be installed with proprietary sound insulating backing boxes/hoods.

 Recessed ceiling loudspeakers must not be located within the sound insulating ceiling.

 Doors must be fitted with closers to ensure that they cannot slam.

 Worktops, shelving, cookers and other fitments such as the dishwasher must be freestanding rather than fixed to or in contact with walls. Glass-washers will need to be mounted on anti-vibration pads.

 A low-noise hand drier should be provided within the WC.

Plant & Flue Treatments

 An acoustic enclosure in a form of an at least 6mm plywood with access door will be built around the fan.

 The two 150mm flues will be exiting through the roof of the lean to and must be fixed to the elevation wall every two meters.

 The supply fan is to be mounted on the wall the stairwell at the lean to and ducted through the roof. This fan needs to be boxed in at least a 6mm plywood duct enclosure.

 The fan shall have an attenuator fitted and the duct which must be lined with at least 25mm acoustic duct lining to the termination point.  The flue pipes must be isolated from the structure via anti-vibration mounts. The flue pipes must be isolated from the fans via anti-vibration gaiters. They must not bridge any of the anti-vibration measures.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 16 14/02158/FUL

All the above mitigation measures shall be carried out in full and completed prior to the development being occupied.

5. It should be noted that when designing the exhaust ducting, good Heating, ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) duct practice should be implemented to ensure that secondary noise is not generated by turbulence in the duct system. It is recommended that the HVAC Engineer employed to undertake the work, undertakes the installation with due cognisance of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Guidance.

6. This application relates to a flatted building. This planning permission does not affect the legal rights of any other parties with an interest in the building. In that respect, the permission does not confer the right to carry out the works without appropriate authority.

7. This permission relates to planning permission only. This does not negate the requirement for other permissions which may be required. e.g. Listed Building Consent, Advertisement Consent.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

There is no pre-application process history.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 16 14/02158/FUL

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 9 June 2014 and four letters of representation were received including the Old Town Community Council and a Ward Councillor. These comprised four letters of objection and raise the following issues;-

 Increase in noise and disturbance to residents arising from proposed restaurant use, particularly arising from evening trading;  Parking issues, increase in traffic levels and congestion;  Loss of amenity to residents arising from plant noise, cooking odours and waste storage; and  Drainage issues, with problems exacerbated by proposed commercial cooking and waste process.

The Old Town Community Council has raised the following issues;-

 Canongate identified in the Edinburgh City Local Plan as a Speciality Shopping Street, which is subject to protection through ECLP Policy Ret 11, Alternative Uses of Shop Units in Other Locations;  The proposal would erode the retail character of Canongate and the viability of few remaining retail shops;  Overprovision of food and drink in the immediate area, which has eroded the retail offer; and  Class 3 use will generate high rental and rateable, and make return to retail use unlikely.

Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Edinburgh City Local Plan - Central Area, Speciality Shopping Street

Date registered 30 May 2014

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01-03,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Francis Newton, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 6435 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

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

Policy Des 12 (Shopfronts) sets criteria for assessing shopfront alterations and/or advertising proposals.

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

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

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

Policy Ca 1 (Central Area) sets criteria for assessing development in the Central Area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Policy Ret 11 (Alternative Use of Shop Units in Other Locations) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing the change of use of a shop unit outwith defined centres.

Policy Ret 12 (Food and Drink Establishments) sets criteria for assessing the change of use to a food & drink establishment.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Non-statutory guidelines 'GUIDANCE FOR BUSINESSES' provides guidance for proposals likely to be made on behalf of businesses. It includes food and drink uses, conversion to residential use, changing housing to commercial uses, altering shopfronts and signage and advertisements.

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 13 of 16 14/02158/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

The application proposes changing the use of a retail unit into a use class 3 in the basement and ground floor of a listed building. The kitchen serving the proposed restaurant will be located in the basement. Residential neighbours are located on the first and second floor above the proposed restaurant.

Environmental Assessment had raised concerns regarding the potential adverse impacts this use may have on the neighbouring residential properties. The proposed use as a class 3 unit has potential to introduce more noise and odours if not mitigated.

The applicant has submitted supporting noise and ventilation reports which have demonstrated how noise and odours can be mitigated to a satisfactory level ensuring that neighbouring residential amenity is not adversely affected. This will be in the form of various acoustic treatments being carried out to the, ceiling, and plant along with commercial ventilation ducting terminating above ridge level via a new external duct. Environmental Assessment recommends that conditions are attached to ensure that these measures are carried out.

Therefore Environmental Assessment offers no objection to this application subject to the following conditions;

The following noise protection measures to the proposed unit, as defined in the Ethos 'Environmental Noise Assessment' report (Ref P6075), dated January 2015:

Ceiling treatments o A suspended metal frame independent ceiling with at least a 50mm mineral wool quilt. This shall be hung on resilient fixings to provide 8-12dB airborne and 8-15dB impact sound insulation improvements. o Only small cable services should penetrate through the ceiling; these and perimeter gaps should be sealed with an acoustic sealant.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 14 of 16 14/02158/FUL o Down-lighters installed in the suspended ceiling, they must be installed with proprietary sound insulating backing boxes / hoods. o Recessed ceiling loudspeakers must not be located within the sound insulating ceiling. o Doors must be fitted with closers to ensure that they cannot slam. o Worktops, shelving, cookers and other fitments such as the dishwasher must be freestanding rather than fixed to or in contact with walls. Glass-washers will need to be mounted on anti-vibration pads. o A low-noise hand drier should be provided within the WC.

Plant & Flue Treatments

o An acoustic enclosure in a form of an at least 6mm plywood with access door will be built around the fan. o The two 150mm flues will be exiting through the roof of the lean to and must be fixed to the elevation wall every two meters. o The supply fan is to be mounted on the wall the stairwell at the lean to and ducted through the roof. This fan needs to be boxed in at least a 6mm plywood duct enclosure. o The fan shall have an attenuator fitted and the duct which must be lined with at least 25mm acoustic duct lining to the termination point. o The flue pipes must be isolated from the structure via anti-vibration mounts. The flue pipes must be isolated from the fans via anti-vibration gaiters. They must not bridge any of the anti-vibration measures.

All the above mitigation measures shall be carried out in full and completed prior to the development being occupied.

Odours

Prior to the use being taken up, the extract flue and ventilation system, capable of 30 air changes per hour, as show on drawing no. 03 dated May 2014 should be implemented.

Informative

It should be noted that when designing the exhaust ducting, good Heating, ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) duct practice should be implemented to ensure that secondary noise is not generated by turbulence in the duct system.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 15 of 16 14/02158/FUL

It is recommended that the HVAC Engineer employed to undertake the work, undertakes the installation with due cognisance of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Guidance.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 16 of 16 14/02158/FUL Development Management Sub Committee

10.00 Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/01446/FUL For a residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping on land 115 metres southeast of 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh

Item number Report number

Wards A16- Liberton/Gilmerton

Executive Summary

The Development Management Sub-Committee, at its meeting on 20 May 2015, decided to refuse the application for the erection of residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping on land 115 metres southeast of 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh.

This report sets out the detailed reason for refusal.

Links

Coalition pledges P15 Council outcomes CO8, CO19, CO22 Single Outcome Agreement SO1 Report

Land 115 metres southeast of 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh.

Recommendations

1.1 To note the report.

Background

2.1 Planning application 14/01446/FUL was submitted on 17 April 2014 for a residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping. Fully detailed plans were submitted which included 61 units, with 15 of these being affordable housing units. In support of the proposals the following documents have been submitted:

 A Design and Access Statement;  An Ecological Assessment;  A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report;  An Archaeological Report;  Pre-application Consultation Report; and  A Sustainability Statement. 2.2 The planning application and the supporting information can be viewed on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services. The report to the Development Management Sub-Committee of 20 May 2015 is an appendix to this report.

Main report

3.1 The Development Management Sub- Committee at its meeting on 20 May 2015 refused planning permission for a residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping on land 115 metres southeast of 42 Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh (14/01446/FUL). This report sets out in detail the reasons for refusal. 3.2 The Committee considered that the proposal does not adequately provide for the additional transport and education infrastructure required as a result of the development and as such is contrary to Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Policy 7 'Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply' part c) which requires for housing development on greenfield development sites, that any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer. In addition, it was agreed that the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards is to report back with the detailed reason for refusal for noting by the Sub-Committee.

3.3 The reason for refusal by the Committee is:

1. The proposed residential development is contrary to Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Policy 7 'Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply' part c) as additional transport and education infrastructure required as a result of this development is not committed or able to be funded by the developer.

Financial impact

4.1 There are no financial impact from this report.

Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

5.1 The planning application has been assessed and progressed in full accordance with statutory requirements and as such the level of risk is considered to be low.

Equalities impact

6.1 There are no adverse impacts in terms of equalities or human rights arising from this report.

Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact of the application was considered at the time of its assessment and decision by the Development Management Sub-Committee on 20 May 2015.

Consultation and engagement

8.1 Consultation and engagement was undertaken in respect of the application prior to its assessment and decision by the Development Management Sub-Committee on 20 May 2015.

Background reading/external references Report by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards to the Development Management Sub-Committee meeting dated 20 May 2015 appended to this report.

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards Contact: Karen Robertson, Senior planning officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3990

Links

Coalition pledges P15 Work with public organisations, the private sector and social enterprise to promote Edinburgh to investors

Council outcomes CO8 Edinburgh’s economy creates and sustains job opportunities 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

Co22 Moving Efficiently- Edinburgh has a transport

system that improves connectivity and is green, healthy and accessible Single Outcome SO1 Edinburgh’s economy delivers increased Agreement investment, jobs and opportunities for all

Appendices Appendix 1- Development Management Sub Committee Report- Application 14/03502/PPP- 20 May 2015

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 20 May 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/01446/FUL At Land 115 Metres Southeast Of 42, Gilmerton Dykes Road, Edinburgh Residential development of 61 units with associated accesses, roads and landscaping.

Item number Report number

Wards A16 - Liberton/Gilmerton

Summary

The proposed development is contrary to the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan in that it involves a non conforming Green Belt development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV 10 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and constitutes a departure of the Development Plan. However the site was identified as a housing proposal in the first Proposed LDP and is also included in the Second Proposed LDP as housing proposal HSG23 with an indicative capacity of 50-70 units. This is a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application.

The scale, design, landscape setting and materials are acceptable. The arrangements for parking are acceptable and there are no implications for road safety. Residential amenity is protected. Flood risk issues have been addressed and the Surface Water Drainage design is acceptable. Archaeological features are to be protected. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 1 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 22.04.2015 and 08.10.2014.

"The application was continued by Committee on 8 October 2014 for further information on the calculation of the financial contributions referred to in the legal agreement. This is included in the addendum to the report."

"The application was continued by Committee on 22nd April 2015 for a 'Hearing' to take place to discuss the financial contributions associated with the application."

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE10, CITE11, CITE12, CITE16, CITE17,

this application CITE18, CITE9, CITH3, CITH2, CITH4, CITH7, CITCO1, CITCO2, NSG, NSGD02, NSP, NSMDV, NSDCAH, SDP, SDP07, LDPP, PLH1,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 2 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site is on the east side of Gilmerton Dykes Road. It has an area of approximately 2.4 hectares. The site slopes gently downwards towards Gilmerton Dykes Road.

The boundary fronting Gilmerton Dykes Road has a partial stone dyke, approximately 1.6 metres high which is broken in places. There are remains of an old wall which runs across the centre of the site in a north-east/ south-west alignment.

There are small groups of trees with scrub planting and hedgerow on the south and east site boundaries. There is a tree belt close to, but outside the site, on the north boundary.

Residential properties to the north and west comprise a mix of detached and semi- detached houses, with a three storey block of flats facing the site to the west. To the south and east is farmland.

2.2 Site History

4 December 2013 - A PAN was considered at Development Management Sub- Committee and key issues were noted (13/04204/PAN).

History of nearby sites

30 April 2014 - Two PPP applications submitted for residential development at Gilmerton Station Road (application references:14/01648/PPP and 14/01649/PPP). Both are under consideration.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 3 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is for a residential development of sixty one units comprising forty nine houses and twelve flats. The accommodation proposes 4 x two bedroomed houses, 11 x three bedroomed houses and 34 x four bedroomed houses. Twelve x two bedroomed flats are also proposed. The flats will be provided in a block to the north west of the site and will be affordable. In addition, three of the houses to the north west of the site will provide affordable housing giving a total of fifteen affordable units.

The houses will be in terraces, as semi-detached and detached dwellings. The houses will be two storeys high; the flatted block will be three storeys high. The buildings have pitched roofs and are of a traditional design.

Two new access roads will be provided from Gilmerton Dykes Road. Each house will have a private car parking space. Thirteen car parking spaces are proposed to the north of the site for the flats. Twelve cycle parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the car parking area/ refuse storage area for the flats.

Materials proposed are buff brown split face reconstituted stone, dry dash render, Pennine concrete reconstituted Arstone cills, heads and gable vents, recycled UPVC and woodgrain effect windows and doors, and Marley Modern profile mock bond (colour smooth grey) to roofs.

Ruins of the former walled garden located along part of the northern site boundary and within the site itself will be used to rebuild the wall which fronts Gilmerton Dykes Road to a height of 1.5 metres. Some of the walled garden remains will be retained in situ or used within landscaped areas. A 1.8 metre high close boarded timber fence is proposed to the northern site boundary. A post and wire fence is proposed along the east and south boundaries of the site.

An area of open space fronts Gilmerton Dykes Road. A landscape belt comprising woodland mix and hedgerow mix will be provided to the south and east of the site. A footpath link is proposed through this area. A fully detailed landscape plan has been submitted with the proposal.

Revised scheme

The revised scheme includes the removal of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System based on an above ground, steeply sloping basin at the site entrance and its replacement with a Sub Surface Celluar Storage System and permeable paving, revised landscaping details and minor design alterations.

Supporting Statement

A Design and Access Statement, an Ecological Assessment, a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report, an Archaeological Report, and a Pre-application Consultation Report have been submitted in support of the planning application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 4 of 33 14/01446/FUL

These documents are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposal is an appropriate use in the Green Belt;

b) the proposal is detrimental to the amenity of neighbours and occupiers of the development;

c) the proposed scale, layout, landscape setting, design and materials are acceptable;

d) the proposal affects road safety;

e) the proposal meets sustainability criteria;

f) the proposal has any equalities or human rights impacts;

g) public comments have been addressed; and

h) the proposal raises any other material planning considerations. a) Principle of development

The site is within the Edinburgh Green Belt in the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) where development will only be permitted for the purposes of agriculture, woodland and forestry, horticulture or for a countryside recreational use compatible with an agricultural or natural setting. The proposal for residential development and associated works is not an appropriate Green Belt use and does not conform to the requirements of Policy Env 10 of the ECLP.

The Strategic Development Plan (SDP) Policy 1A outlines the spatial strategy for the SDP including the identification of 13 Strategic Development Areas. South East Edinburgh is identified as a Strategic Development Area and the application site falls within this area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 5 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Paragraph 46 of the SDP confirms that the scale of any additional housing allocations will be determined through Local Development Plans following the preparation of SESplan supplementary guidance taking into account environmental and infrastructure constraints.

Scottish Planning Policy and SDP Policy 7 require a five year effective housing land supply to be maintained. Sites within the identified Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in Local Development Plans or granted planning permission to maintain a five year effective housing land supply, subject to the development being in character with the settlement or local area, the development not undermining green belt objectives and any additional infrastructure required by the development being committed or to be funded by the developer.

A comprehensive assessment of all available Greenfield land in South East Edinburgh was undertaken to inform the Proposed Local Development Plan (set out within the Revised Environmental Report, March 2013 and Second Revision, June 2014). The housing site assessment criteria fully reflect the criteria included within policy 7 of the SDP concludes that development of this site would be acceptable.

The proposal therefore complies with Policy 7 of the SDP.

There is currently a shortfall in the five year effective land supply. However the Second Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) identifies further Greenfield housing sites to meet the SDP housing requirements.

The Second Proposed LDP allocates this site as housing site HSG23. The site was also identified as a housing proposal (HSG23) in the first Proposed LDP (March 2013).

The representation period for the first Proposed Plan ran from 1 May 2013 until 14 June 2013. During this time, representations were received from over 2,200 individuals and organisations, a number of which are directly relevant to this application. There were 29 representations to proposal HSG 23, one in support and the remainder seeking change. These are set out in the LDP Schedule of Representations, June 2014. The majority of representations were objecting to the principle of development and requesting that the proposal is deleted. Other representations related to detailed considerations such as tree planting and transport infrastructure. Having regard to all the representations received, the site is still considered to be an appropriate housing site and remains in the Second Proposed LDP.

The Second Proposed LDP was approved at Planning Committee on 19 June 2014. The Planning Committee approved a new Development Plan Scheme (DPS) for the LDP on 19 June 2014.

The site is identified as a housing proposal HSG23 in the Second proposed LDP. The application is therefore in accordance with policy Hou 1a) in the Second Proposed LDP, which supports development on sites allocated in this Plan to meet strategic housing requirements. The application proposes 61 dwellings which is between the minimum and maximum capacity range stated in the Second Proposed LDP.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 6 of 33 14/01446/FUL

The Second Proposed LDP contains site briefs for each of the new housing allocations. The application broadly complies with the development principles set out in the Brief and reflects the broad principles presented to the Edinburgh Urban Design Panel.

In conclusion, the application is contrary to policy Env10 in the ECLP and is a departure from the adopted Local Plan. However Scottish Planning Policy and the Strategic Development Plan require a five year effective land supply to be maintained at all times. The proposal meets all of the criterion within SDP policy 7. The Second Proposed LDP allocates additional sites to meet the Council's housing requirement. The site was identified as a housing proposal in the first Proposed LDP and is also included in the Second Proposed LDP. The principle of residential development on this site is therefore supported and complies with proposal HSG 23 and policy Hou1a) in the Second Proposed LDP.

Consideration has been given to whether granting planning permission in advance of adoption of the Local Development Plan would prejudice the emerging plan. In this instance, it is not considered premature to do so because the LDP housing site assessment demonstrates that the proposal accords with SDP policy 7, the cumulative infrastructure requirements have been established and account has been taken of relevant representations submitted to the first Proposed LDP. The need to maintain a five year effective housing land supply is also a consideration.

The proposal is a departure from the Development Plan, however, notification to Scottish Ministers is not required in this instance as the development is not a significant departure from the Development Plan and the Council does not have an interest in the site. b) Amenity of neighbours and occupiers

In terms of privacy, an acceptable level will be maintained to existing neighbouring property and to occupiers of properties within the proposed development in accordance with the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

There would not be any adverse loss of sunlight or overshadowing to neighbouring property as a result of the proposed development and future occupiers would also benefit from sufficient daylighting.

In conclusion, there would not be any adverse loss of amenity to existing property surrounding the site and to the proposed properties. c) Scale, layout, landscape setting, design and materials

Design policies seek to draw upon the positive characteristics of the surrounding area to create or reinforce a sense of place. Developments should have a positive impact on their setting, having regard to the positioning of buildings on their site, their height, scale and form, materials, landscape impacts and impacts on views.

The site is covered by the Gilmerton Site Brief within the Second Proposed LDP. It is one of three proposed housing sites in Gilmerton.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 7 of 33 14/01446/FUL

The Brief requires that new housing and an associated landscape framework should enhance the quality and character of the urban edge and respond to the wooded grounds of The Drum and the former Gilmerton House.

The Brief requires a 20 metres tree belt to the south of the site and a 30 metres tree belt to the south east to reflect the policy woodland of the former Gilmerton House.

An opportunity to create a footpath connection to HSG 24 (Gilmerton Station Road) is also stipulated.

The Urban Design Panel (UDP) generally supported the design concept of the scheme. The Panel suggested that the following matters to be considered:

 develop an appropriate edge to the landscape;  develop a sequence and quality to open space;  develop an appropriate architecture for this sensitive site; and  ensure that the detailed design is developed to fully realise the design concept.

The proposal includes tree belts to the south and east site boundaries to an acceptable depth. On the south east boundary, around 30 metres planting is proposed, comprising woodland and hedgerow species, open space incorporating a perimeter path link, inclusion of specimen trees and retention of existing walling as per the City Archaeologists advice.

To the south, the building line is generally set back 20 metres from the site boundary. The depth of planting which also incorporates the perimeter path link ranges from 10 to 20 metres. Vehicular access cuts through a section of the landscaped boundary towards the south west of the site. However, this is compensated by proposed street trees to continue the planted edge to the site. These proposals will form a robust green belt boundary, whilst also providing accessible open space. This addresses the comments of the UDP in this respect.

The tree survey submitted with the application confirms that most of the trees within the site boundary are not regarded as being important to retain. The belt of trees outwith the site boundary to the north are of high retention value and provide a good natural buffer between the existing and proposed development. These trees should be protected during construction and a condition is recommended to address this.

Approximately 27% of the site would be open space. A fully detailed landscape plan has been submitted. This shows the landscape layout and planting schedule for the site including the southern and south eastern landscaped belts to the boundaries. Material from the existing wall to the Gilmerton Dykes Road frontage will be used to create a new wall fronting the site. The use of other elements of the historic walls will be retained in parts of the development. Overall the scheme is acceptable and will result in a well landscaped setting for the proposed development.

A footpath link from Gilmerton Dykes Road through the landscaped belt to the south and south east will provide a potential link through to connect to the Second Proposed LDP site HSG 24. This is in accordance with the Brief's requirements.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 8 of 33 14/01446/FUL

The layout is an appropriate design solution for the site with a mix of detached, semi detached and terraced housing, and flats. The heights of the buildings reflect those in the existing area. The use of detailed design elements such as gables and setbacks help to break up the elevational treatment. The design of the buildings is of a simple traditional design. The proposed materials are appropriate. Vehicular access is proposed off Gilmerton Dykes Road in accordance with the Brief.

In terms of scale, layout, landscape setting, design and materials, the proposals are acceptable.

The site is not within or adjacent to the Gilmerton Conservation Area. Public realm improvements would be provided by footway improvements along Gilmerton Dykes Road. d) Parking, access and road safety arrangements

The two new vehicular access points to and from the site are acceptable. In terms of car and cycle parking, the proposals are to an acceptable standard.

The Action Programme of the Second Proposed LDP sets out actions to help mitigate the impact of strategic and planned growth and to deliver the policies and proposals identified within the Second Proposed LDP. LDP policies Del 1 (Developer Contributions) and policy Del 2 (Retrospective Developer Contributions) set out the Council's approach to the provision of infrastructure and improvements associated with development, taking account of current economic conditions. Non statutory guidance provides advice on implementation of these policies.

For each of the development sites identified within the Plan, the Action Programme also identifies site specific transport, and other actions, which are required to mitigate the impact of the development, or in some cases several developments.

The transport requirements for this site include reconfiguration of the Gilmerton Crossroads junction with access and parking strategy for Drum Street to alleviate congestion caused by parked cars close to the junction.

Site specific transport actions include the provision of a cycle link from Gilmerton Road to Lasswade Road, the upgrading of bus stops on Lasswade Road/Gilmerton Road, the enhancement of peak period bus capacity on Gilmerton Road and the provision of a new footway along Gilmerton Dykes Road.

In accordance with the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing guidance, the application site's share of these Action Programme transport actions is £26,190. This shall be required by a Section 75 Legal Agreement.

Transport has no objection to the proposed development subject to the submission of a Draft Travel Plan prior to first occupation of the development and submission of a Final Travel Plan to be submitted within twelve months of that date. This can be covered by condition.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 9 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Financial contributions of £2,000 are required for the redetermination of footways, verges and carriageways as required to form the access to the development and £2,000 to progress an order to control disabled parking places if necessary. This shall be secured by a Section 75 Legal Agreement. e) Sustainability

The applicant has submitted a Sustainability Statement in support of the application.

Essential Criteria Available Achieved

Section 1: Energy needs 20 20 Section 2: Water conservation 10 10 Section 3: Surface water run-off 10 10 Section 4: Recycling 10 10 Section 5: Materials 30 30

Total points: 80 80

The proposal complies with the requirements of part A of the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings. The proposal also complies with part B of the Standards. The requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance are met. f) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

The application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No adverse impacts were identified. An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment Summary is available to view on Planning and Building Standards Online Services. g) Public comments

Material Representations

 The loss of Green Belt; this is assessed in 3.3a).  The sensitivity of the site in terms of archaeology, aesthetics, amenity and environmental issues. These issues are addressed in 3.3b and h).  Issues of traffic increase, congestion and danger. These objections are dealt with in assessment 3.3d).  Air pollution concerns are considered in assessment 3.3h).  Prematurity has been raised which is discussed in assessment 3.3a).  Damaging effect on landscape and loss of open rural feel is dealt with in assessment 3.3a and 3.3c).  Adverse effect on the character of the conservation area. This is dealt with in assessment 3.3c).  Objections concerning increased significant pressure on local services eg schools are addressed in 3.3h).  Concerns about inadequate provision of medical services are addressed in 3.3h).

Issues about increase in crime and a negative impact on well being are not material planning issues.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 10 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Community Council Comments

The Gilmerton Inch Community Council objects to the development proposals as they involve building on Green Belt land and the increase in traffic will have an adverse impact on the area especially the Ravenscroft/Drum Street. These issues are covered in assessment 3.3a and 3.3d). h) There are any other material planning considerations

Affordable housing

The proposal provides 25% affordable housing. Housing has no objections to the proposal. This shall be secured by a Section 75 legal agreement.

Education

The Second Proposed LDP Action Programme sets out requirements for educational infrastructure within this part of the South East Edinburgh area. Two options are proposed comprising the provision of a new Gilmerton South Non Denominational (ND) Primary School (proposal SCH7) - option 1, or the extension of existing primary schools within the area - option 2. In addition, an extension to St John Vianney Roman Catholic (RC) Primary is required.

In accordance with the Developer Contributions and Affordable Housing guidance, the application site's share of the cost of the ND education actions is £1,167,280 (of which £104,686 is attributable to the value of land for new schools). This is sufficient to allow either Option 1 or Option 2 to be progressed by the Council. The application site's share of the cost of the RC actions is £29,167.

This would be secured by a section 75 legal agreement.

Health care services

One representation has raised concern about impact on the capacity of local medical services. This issue has also been raised within the context of new housing allocations identified in the Proposed Local Development Plan. The provision of primary care facilities is currently the responsibility of the Edinburgh Community Health Partnership. From 2015, this is expected to come under the integrated Edinburgh Heath and Social Care Partnership. Discussions are taking place between the Council and NHS Lothian on how best to plan for the healthcare facilities required in conjunction with new housing development. As these discussion progress and more detailed information becomes available, this can be incorporated into the Local Development Plan Action Programme through its annual review. It may be appropriate in the future to seek developer contributions towards healthcare facilities. However, there is no justification to do so for this application.

Environmental impacts

Environmental Assessment recommends a condition to assess and deal with any contamination at the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 11 of 33 14/01446/FUL

No Air Quality Impact Assessment has been submitted with this application. Environmental Assessment does not object to these proposals in terms of air quality due to the site's location and the number of dwellings proposed.

The proposal initially included a Sustainable Urban Drainage System based on an above ground, steeply sloping basin located at the site entrance on Gilmerton Dykes Road. Whilst meeting technical drainage specifications, this was unacceptable in urban design terms. A revised scheme which uses a Sub Surface Cellular Storage System and permeable paving for drainage is considered to be an appropriate compromise in this instance. Bridges and Structures confirm acceptability of the scheme.

Archaeology

The archaeological desk based assessment submitted states that the site occupies the western element of the historic gardens/grounds associated with the former Gilmerton House. Elements of the post medieval walled gardens and walk ways are known to extend into this application site and survive as the sites stone boundary walls and the Long Walk (post medieval track).

The proposals retain the section of 'Long Walk' across the northern site boundary and also the retention and repair of the historic stone boundary walls forming the site's eastern and northern boundaries.

The City Archaeologist recommends a condition to ensure that a detailed restoration/ conservation plan, including the recording of these historic features, are submitted for agreement prior to works on site commencing.

Archaeological evidence also demonstrates that there will be a wide range of significant archaeological remains at the site which relate to the important medieval estate and house. The City Archaeologist recommends that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to development. It is also important that this contains a programme of public/ community involvement. A condition is proposed for the securing the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

Conclusion

In summary, the proposed development is contrary to the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan in that it involves a non conforming Green Belt development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV 10 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and it constitutes a departure of the Development Plan. However the site was identified as a housing proposal in the first Proposed LDP and is also included in the Second Proposed LDP as housing proposal HSG23 with an indicative capacity of 50 -70 units. The proposals on the whole comply with the relevant policies in respect of the scale, design, landscape setting and materials. The tree belts on the south and east boundaries whilst not fully meeting the requirements of the Brief would provide an acceptable landscape setting for the development. The arrangements for parking are acceptable and there are no implications for road safety. Residential amenity is protected. Flood risk issues have been addressed and the Surface Water Drainage design is acceptable. Archaeological features are to be protected.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 12 of 33 14/01446/FUL

The principle of development is supported by the emerging Local Development Plan and the details of the proposal in the whole comply with relevant policies. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this conclusion.

It is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to conditions in respect of land contamination, archaeology, the submission of a Green Travel Plan, landscape implementation, tree protection and details of re use of historic stone features within the development.

The Legal Agreement is proposed to implement the requirements of the Second Proposed LDP Action Programme in terms of education contributions and transport requirements. The applicant has been advised of the figures proposed for the Second Proposed LDP Action Programme and has stated that the contribution required from this site is much higher than anticipated. The applicant has requested that the application is considered by the Development Management Sub Committee but would wish to finalise the terms of the Section 75 Legal Agreement in terms of financial contributions. In the event that the final financial contribution is revised, the application would be returned to the Development Management Subcommittee for consideration in relation to this issue.

Affordable Housing and other transport related requirements will also be covered by Legal Agreement.

Addendum to Assessment

The application was considered at the Development Management Sub-Committee on 8 October 2014.

Committee requested further information on the calculation of the financial contributions referred to in the legal agreement be provided.

The applicant has submitted an appraisal on the financial costs of developing the site and has also confirmed that the commercial transaction on the net value being paid for the land is at or below prevailing market values achieved elsewhere in the city. The landowner has confirmed in writing that they cannot accept any further reductions from the purchase price.

Negotiations which have taken place between the developer and the land owner has arrived at a minimal value the owners of the land are willing to sell at, leaving the developers with a balance available of £610,000. The appraisal confirms the abnormal costs at £625,000, with the maximum amount available for section s75 contributions being £610,000.

Corporate Property has considered the financial statement and confirms that the maximum feasible s.75 payment is £610,000 based on the applicants currently agreed land price along with their appraisal information.

Further modelling work has been done to establish the likely cost to the Council, of delivering the infrastructure needed to support development (as identified in the draft Action Programme) in this part of the city.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 13 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Based on the proposed Local Development Plan sites and their capacities, it is estimated that 1440 houses and 556 flats will be built in the Liberton and Gilmerton areas. The estimated cost of the educational and transport infrastructure required is £46,758,182. The estimated costs of educational infrastructure are based on option 1 within the Education Appraisal which involves the provision of two new primary schools. The feasibility of, and costs associated with, option 2 which would involve the extension of both Gilmerton and Gracemount Primary Schools to be four stream schools together with some other catchment changes rather than creating two new primary schools has not yet been considered. Assuming that the levels of contribution being offered in relation to this application are the level likely to be achieved throughout this area, then the total estimated cost to the Council would be reduced to £32,447,750. However, based on an estimate of the timing of expenditure and income, if the Council were to fund this expenditure through borrowing, the total interest costs payable over a 20 year period would total £21,122,983 taking total infrastructure costs including the cost of borrowing to £53,570,733.

Members should note that no allowance for this infrastructure cost is provided for within the current capital investment programme 2015-2020 or indicative five year plan 2019/20-2023/24. Members should also note that no allowance is included in the current Council long term revenue budget financial plan for the potentially significant additional revenue costs which will arise in running and maintaining this infrastructure. It should also be noted that the potential financial impact on the Council is not a material planning consideration. However, the availability of, or lack of, infrastructure is a material consideration.

Based on the above additional information it is recommended that the Committee approves this application subject to conditions in respect of land contamination, archaeology, the submission of a Green Travel Plan, landscape implementation, tree protection and details of re use of historic stone features within the development.

Affordable Housing and other transport related requirements will be covered by Legal Agreement.

The application was considered at Development Management Subcommittee on 22 April 2015 and was continued for a 'Hearing' to take place to discuss the financial contributions of the planning application.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

a) A site survey (including intrusive investigation where necessary) must be carried out to establish, 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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 14 of 33 14/01446/FUL

b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

ii) 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 for the approval of the Planning Authority.

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

Note: 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.

3. A detailed restoration/conservation plan (including recording) showing the retention and/ or re-use of the main surviving elements of the post-medieval landscape features should be submitted to the Head of Planning _ Building Standards for agreement prior to works starting on site. The approved details shall be implemented and retained at all times unless otherwise agreed by the Head of Planning _ Building Standards.

4. The approved landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within six months of the completion of the development.

5. The trees shown as being retained in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints report dated January 2014 and on Donald Rodger Associates drawing no. 14476 and 109.80.01c dated January 2014 shall be protected during the construction period by the erection of fencing, in accordance with clause 2 of BS5837: 2005 " Trees in relation to construction".

6. A Draft Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Council prior to first occupation of the development and a Final Travel Plan shall be submitted within twelve months of that date.

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

8. The proposed pedestrian/ cycleway connection as shown on landscape drawing 109.80.01c to connect the site to Second Proposed Local Development Plan site HSG 24 shall be constructed to a prospectively adoptable standard and shall be implemented prior to occupation of the first dwelling and retained at all times unless otherwise agreed by the Head of Planning _ Building Standards.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 15 of 33 14/01446/FUL

9. Before any part of the development is brought into use, the cycle parking as shown on the approved plans shall be completed and and available for use.

Reasons:-

1. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.

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

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

4. In order to ensure that the approved landscaping works are properly established on site.

5. In order to safeguard protected trees.

6. To support a sustainable form of development.

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

8. to ensure the requirements of the Gilmerton Brief in respect of improving accessibility are met.

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

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

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

4. The applicant shall enter into a suitable legal agreement in respect of the following:

i) Education contributions; ii) Transport contributions; and iii) Affordable Housing requirements.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 16 of 33 14/01446/FUL

5. 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. Works to include a minimum 2m width footway along the Gilmerton Dykes Road frontage of the development, including suitable dropped kerb crossing points to the north-west side of Gilmerton Dykes Road and any necessary require amendment / replacement of the existing lighting, drainage and kerb.

A Quality Audit is required for the development, as set out in Designing Streets. The Audit is required prior to submission of an application for Road Construction Consent.

Access to any car parking area is to be by dropped kerb (ie not bell mouth).

A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (eg loose chippings) being carried on to the road.

Any gate or gates must open inwards onto the property.

Any hardstanding outside should be porous to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

The application is subject to a legal agreement for developer contributions. Risk, Policy, compliance and governance impact

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

The application was subject to pre-application advice.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 17 of 33 14/01446/FUL

A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted and registered on 4 October 2013.

Copies of the Notice were also issued to:

 Gilmerton Inch Community Council;  Liberton and Gilmerton Neighbourhood Partnership; and  All ward councillors.

Community consultation events were held on Saturday 14 December 2013 and Tuesday 17 December 2013 at Gracemount High School.

A pre-application report on the proposals were presented to the Committee on 4 December 2013 and the key issues were noted.

The proposals were submitted to the Urban Design Panel on 28 August 2013. Full details of the response can be found in the Consultations section.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 2 May 2014. Two letters were received objecting to the proposals including one from Ian Murray MP. These raised the following material issues:

 non conforming green belt use;  sensitivity of site affected in terms of archaeology, amenity, aesthetics and environmental issues;  increased traffic generation cause problems at junction of Gilmerton Dykes Street and Newtoft Street, congestion and danger;  air quality;  prematurity in terms of local plans;  damaging to landscape and loss of open rural feel;  adverse effect on Conservation Area;  flood risk; and  pressure on local services eg schools and medical services.

Non material comments are raised about increase crime/ impact on local police capacity, and negative impact on wellbeing of existing local residents.

Gilmerton Inch Community Council

The Gilmerton Inch Community Council objects to the proposal as the development involves building in the Green Belt and would result in increased traffic. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 18 of 33 14/01446/FUL

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 19 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision Strategic Development Plan (June 2013)

Policy 1A outlines the spatial strategy for the SDP including the identification of 13 Strategic Development Areas of which South East Edinburgh is identified as a Strategic Development Area.

Policy 7 require a five years effective housing land supply to be maintained.

Scottish Planning Policy

SPP requires a supply of effective land for at least five years to be maintained at all times.

Finalised SDP Supplementary Guidance

The Finalised SDP sets out housing land requirements for each of the six Council areas as required by SDP policy 5.

Edinburgh City Local Plan

The site is within the Edinburgh Green Belt.

Second Proposed Local Development Plan

The site is identified as housing allocation HSG 23.

Date registered 17 April 2014

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1,2a,3a,4,5a,6-11,12a, 13b-14b, 15a-17a, 18-19, 20,21a,

Scheme 2

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 20 of 33 14/01446/FUL

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Karen Robertson, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3990 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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 16 (Species) sets out species protection requirements for new development.

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

Policy Hou 3 (Private Open Space) sets out the requirements for the provision of private open space in housing development.

Policy Hou 2 (Housing Mix) requires the provision of a mix of house types and sizes in new housing developments.

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 Com1 (Community Facilities) sets requirements for the provision of community facilities associated with large scale residential development, and the protection of existing community facilities.

Policy Com2 (School Contributions) sets the requirements for school contributions associated with new housing development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 21 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts.

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.

Relevant Policies of the Strategic Development Plan

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 Proposed Local Development Plan.

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 22 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Edinburgh Urban Design Panel Report - 28 August 2013

Executive Summary

The Panel welcomes the proposals for review at this very early stage of the design and planning processes. There is clearly a quality of thought that has resulted in a clear and logical layout which needs to be carried through as the design develops. The Council should consider the strategic issue of housing supply and measures that can be taken to reduce pressure for further development of the green belt.

Main Report

1 Introduction

1.1 This report relates to a proposal for around 70 dwellings on site off Gilmerton Dykes Road.

1.2 The site is identified in the proposed Edinburgh Local Development Plan. The Plan states that access should be taken from Gilmerton Dykes Road, that provision be made for a new tree belt of 20m (south) and 30m (south east) to form a strong green belt boundary and to reflect the policy woodland of the former Gilmerton House and that there is an opportunity to take a path connection to the proposed housing site at Gilmerton Station Road. CEC estimates a capacity of between 50 to 70 dwellings.

1.3 This is the first time that the proposals have been reviewed.

1.4 No declarations of interest were made by any panel members in relation to this scheme.

1.5 This report should be read in conjunction with the pre meeting papers which provide an overview, context, concept, plans, sections and 3D visualisations of the scheme.

1.6 This report is the view of the Panel and is not attributable to any one individual. The report does not prejudice any of the organisations who are represented at the Panel forming a differing view about the proposals at a later stage.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 23 of 33 14/01446/FUL

2 Green belt

2.1 Though there is, clearly, need to see more housing units in the city, and compliance with Scottish Government policy is important, the issue of long term amenity to Edinburgh citizens is compromised by successive bites of green belt being ceded to such incremental encroachment. The planning process needs, therefore, to rebalance these legitimate interests - the long term existence of an accessible green belt with housing supply. Making existing vacant sites in within the city more attractive for development and therefore deliverable is therefore key to reducing pressure for development on green belt land.

3 Landscape Proposals

3.1 The Panel supported the landscape approach shown to date. However, how the proposal fits with the wider topography is critical to the design of successful edges and strong wooded greenbelt edge. The proposal, as part of its design development, will require further testing, for example sectional studies to show the relationship of the landscape, built form and wider site topography. This will also allow a full understanding of the design proposals for these edges.

3.2 The idea that the SUDS area will be usable and not just visual was welcomed by the Panel.

4 Permeability and Routes

4.1 The approach of the built form addressing the new woodland edges and path networks was encouraged by the Panel.

4.2 The Panel encouraged the design team to consider a more varied approach to the public realm and sequence of spaces and routes. For example, it was suggested that the design could accommodate more enclosure to the streets.

5 Transport

5.1 As a general comment regarding the ELDP sites in this area, most will be car dependant. To achieve a more integrated approach to land use and transport planning, for example, an extension of the tram route to this area may help to open up these sites and make them less car dependant.

5.2 With respect to the proposal and the presented concept sketches, these appear to be embracing the aspirations of the Scottish Governments Policy Statement - Designing Streets.

6 Developing the Design Concept

6.1 Developing the Design Concept: The Panel although appreciative of being able to review this scheme at this early stage expressed concern at the lack of detail on the drawings and if in fact the aspirations of the design concept will be delivered as the proposals progressed through the detailed design and planning process. In developing an appropriate design for this sensitive site, details - for example of boundary

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 24 of 33 14/01446/FUL treatments, streets and spaces, building siting, form and materials - will all be critical in delivering the aspirations of the concept.

6.2 Architecture: In developing an appropriate building design on this very sensitive site, selection of the correct building form for the site, materials, architectural language and how the built form responds to the landscape will be critical in achieving a successful design. The Panel expressed concern regarding the success of the overall design if a standard developer product is proposed for this sensitive site. It was therefore suggested that the architecture should be set out as part of the planning application.

7 Community Security

7.1 The proposed back garden boundary treatments and overlooking to public footpaths is supported by the Panel.

7.2 The design, materials and control by cycle barriers, of the pedestrian paths will require careful consideration to ensure they are not misused.

8 Recommendations

The Panel generally supported the design concept. In developing the proposal further, the Panel suggests that the following matters should be considered:

• developing an appropriate edge to the landscape. • developing the sequence and quality of the public spaces. • developing an appropriate architecture for this sensitive site. • ensuring that the detail design is developed to fully realise the design concept.

Police Scotland comment o The area surrounding the proposed site experiences a low to medium level of recorded crime with acquisitive crime like housebreaking, thefts from sheds etc featuring highly. o It is recommended that the developer consider applying for secure by design accreditation o We recommend that the recessed shared access front door on the apartment block is avoided.

SEPA comment

We have no objection to this planning application. Please note the advice provided below.

Advice for the Planning Authority

1. Foul Drainage

1.1 Foul drainage from the site should be discharged to the public sewerage network. The applicant should consult Scottish Water in this regard. We confirm that it is the responsibility of Scottish Water to ensure that the additional flow arising from this

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 25 of 33 14/01446/FUL development will not cause or contribute to the premature operation of consented storm overflows.

2. Surface Water Drainage

2.1 The discharge of surface water to the water environment should be in accordance with the principles of the SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) Manual (C697) published by CIRIA.

2.2 Comments from Scottish Water and, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought on the SUDS strategy in terms of water quantity/flooding and adoption issues.

2.3 Surface water drainage from the construction phase should also be dealt with by SUDS. Such drainage should be in accordance with C648 and C649, both published by CIRIA. It should be noted that oil interceptors are not considered SUDS in their own right but are beneficial as part of the treatment train.

3. Domestic Waste

3.1 Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 215 states that "residential, commercial and industrial properties should be designed to provide for waste separation and collection." In accordance with this policy and PAN 63 Waste Management Planning, space should be designated within the planning application site layout to allow for the separation and collection of waste, consistent with the type of development proposed. Please consult with your local council's waste management team to determine what space requirements are required within the application site layout. Some local authorities have an information sheet setting out space requirements.

Bridges and Structures- revised comments dated 18/09/2014

It is acknowledged that the discharge rate has been determined based on the minimum acceptable diameter for a discharge pipe of 75mm. This is considered acceptable by CEC.

The updated flow path diagram (E10059~2402_1_ A0 (1).pdf) shows a more detailed overview of post development flow paths. The addition of retaining walls which divert flows from plots 59 to 61 towards road drainage is welcome. It is acknowledged that changes have been made to post development ground levels to include gradients to prevent ponding of water where risk was identified and are therefore accepted.

This is a Greenfield development and therefore SUDS detention storage should be housed above ground. Use of underground storage is disappointing and less sustainable than an above ground detention basin. It is also disappointing that in the event of drainage blockage, or an extreme event, flows beyond the storage volume of the drainage system are diverted onto Gilmerton Dykes Road to be dealt with by road drainage, rather than detained on site at a suitable location.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 26 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Gilmerton Inch Community Council comment

Gilmerton Inch Community Council believe that there should be no building on designated Green Belt Land. Also, the impact of more traffic on the existing road access would disadvantage the existing residents, particularly at the Ravenscroft/Drum Street section.

Archaeology comment

As stated in the archaeological Desk-based Assessment (DBA) undertaken by AOC Archaeology (AOC report 22650) accompanying this application, the site occupies the western element of the historic gardens/grounds associated with the former Gilmerton House. Occupation on this site was established by the early 12th century with the medieval manorial house being destroyed by the English in 1547. Its 16th century replacement stood adjacent to this application site until its demolition prior to 1975. Elements of the post-medieval walled gardens and walk ways are known to extend into this application site and indeed survive as the sites stone boundary walls and long walk.

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 ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Historic landscape boundary walls

As previously discussed it is important that the main surviving elements of the post- medieval historic landscape are retained and respected within this new development. As such it is welcomed that the proposed scheme will see the retention of the 'Long Walk' across the northern boundary of the site and also the retention and repair of the historic stone boundary walls forming the site's eastern and northern boundaries. It is recommended therefore that a condition is attached to ensure that a detailed restoration/conservation plan (including there recording) for these historic features is submitted for agreement prior to works starting on site.

Buried archaeology

The archaeological evidence as outlined above demonstrates that the application site will contain a wide range of significant archaeological remains relating to the development of this important medieval estate and house. The proposed development will require significant large scale ground breaking /engineering works which will have a significant affect upon any buried remains. Accordingly this proposed residential scheme is considered as having an overall moderate archaeological impact.

Accordingly it is recommended that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to development. In essence this will see a phased archaeological programme of works, the initial phase being an archaeological evaluation up to a maximum of 10% of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 27 of 33 14/01446/FUL

The results of which would allow for the production of appropriate more detailed mitigation strategies to be drawn up to ensure the appropriate protection and/or excavation, recording and analysis of any surviving archaeological remains prior to development. The programme of works will also include a programme of metal detecting prior to any topsoil stripping.

Archaeological Public Engagement

Further given the potential importance of these remains in terms of the history of Edinburgh and in particular the local Gilmerton area it is considered important that the programme of archaeological works contain a programme of public/community engagement. The scope of this public engagement will be agreed with CECAS and informed by the results of the evaluation works but could include participation in the above mentioned metal detecting survey along with public lectures, viewing points, temporary interpretation boards etc.

It is therefore recommended that if consent is granted that in the following condition be attached to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to/during construction.

'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.'

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.

Transport comment

We have no objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. 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. Works to include a minimum 2m width footway along the Gilmerton Dykes Road frontage of the development, including suitable dropped kerb crossing points to the north-west side of Gilmerton Dykes Road and any necessary require amendment / replacement of the existing lighting, drainage and kerb;

2. The development must provide for a potential cycle / pedestrian link to the proposed development at Gilmerton Station Road (HSG24) by constructing a prospectively adoptable route to the boundary of the application site;

3. A Quality Audit is required for the development, as set out in Designing Streets. The Audit is required prior to submission of an application for Road Construction Consent;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 28 of 33 14/01446/FUL

4. Cycle parking will be expected to be provided in a secure and undercover location to the Council's current standards. The design, layout and specification to be to the satisfaction of the Head of Transport.

5. A draft travel plan to be submitted to the Council prior to first occupation of the development and a final travel plan to be submitted within 12 months of that date;

6. Access to any car parking area is to be by dropped kerb (i.e. not bell mouth);

7. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road;

8. Any gate or gates must open inwards onto the property;

9. Any hard standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012;

10. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to: a. Upgrade existing bus infrastructure on Lasswade Road (costs to be determined); b. Help provide new pedestrian / cycle route signage in the local area(costs to be determined); c. Implement residential travel plan, with agreed mode share targets, monitoring and potential additional mitigation measures(costs to be determined); d. Help provide Gilmerton Road / Drum Street junction improvement scheme(costs to be determined); e. provide a contribution of £2,000 to redetermine footways, verges and carriageways as required to form the access to the development; f. provide a contribution of £2,000 to progress an order to control disabled parking places if necessary. See 11 below; g. submit a draft travel plan to the Council prior to first occupation of the first phase of development and a final travel plan to be submitted within 12 months of that date;

11. All disabled persons parking places should comply with Disabled Persons Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009. The Act places a duty on the local authority to promote proper use of parking places for disabled persons' vehicles. The applicant should therefore advise the Head of Transport if he wishes the bays to be enforced under this legislation. A contribution of £2,000 will be required to progress the necessary traffic order. All disabled persons parking places must comply with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 regulations or British Standard 8300:2009 as approved by the Head of Transport.

Affordable Housing comment

Services for Communities have developed a methodology for assessing housing requirements by tenure, which supports an Affordable Housing Policy (AHP) for the city.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 29 of 33 14/01446/FUL 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 a maximum of 61 residential units and as such the AHP will apply.

The AHP requirement will be for 15 homes of approved affordable housing tenures (25%) and these will be required to be provided on site, following the principles of blind tenure construction. They will also be required to be located in a position which is accessible to local amenities and public transport, provide a representative mix of house types and sizes and be well integrated within the market homes to provide a mixed sustainable community.

The applicant has entered into dialogue with this department and has confirmed their commitment to delivering 25% (15) homes of approved affordable housing tenures. They have agreed to enter into dialogue with an RSL with a view to delivery of an element of social rented homes. This will be subject to successful negotiations with an RSL. They have also made a commitment to provide an element of unsubsidised low cost home ownership.

In the current application there is no indication as to the location of the affordable housing. This has been discussed with the developer who has indicated that subject to successful negotiations with RSLs, social rented homes may be delivered within the flatted block at the entrance to the site and the low cost home ownership homes provided as terraced low rise units nearby.

The developer will be required to enter into a Section 75 legal agreement to secure these affordable homes.

3. Summary

As detailed above, the developer has made a commitment to deliver the 25% AHP requirement and this is welcomed by this department. This department has requested that the applicant enter into dialogue with an RSL.

Environmental Assessment comment

The applicant proposes developing 61 residential units on land that is currently overgrown. There are existing residential properties located to the northwest and northeast with agricultural fields located to the south. There are proposals to develop many of these neighbouring fields for residential use.

Environmental Assessment is concerned with the level of proposed development within the Gilmerton area and the adverse impacts this may have on local air quality due to increased traffic.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 30 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Environmental Assessment had requested that an air quality impact was submitted for this application. This should have investigated the impacts their development along with the neighbouring committed developments would have on local air quality. The applicant has not submitted an air quality impact assessment.

Taking into account the location and quantum of this development Environmental Assessment will offer no objection on the grounds of air quality for this specific application.

Due to the historic land use in the area Environmental Assessment recommend that a condition is attached to ensure that contaminated land is suitably investigated.

Therefore Environmental Assessment offers no objection to this application subject to the following condition;

Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

(a) A site survey (including initial desk study as a minimum) 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.

Children + Families comment

This site is located within the catchment areas of: o Gilmerton Primary School; o St John Vianney RC Primary School; o Liberton High School; and o Holy Rood RC High School.

The site is allocated in the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (ELDP) 2013 for 50- 75 dwellings (HSG 25).

A revised Edinburgh Local Development Plan will be taken to Planning Committee on June 19, 2014. The plan retains the housing site at Gilmerton Dykes Road and its proposed capacity. The revised plan will be accompanied by an updated Education Infrastructure Appraisal setting out the required educational infrastructure and estimated costs of provision to support the new housing proposals.

An associated Action Programme will be taken forward that sets out the funding mechanisms to deliver the infrastructure requirements.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 31 of 33 14/01446/FUL

On the basis that the Planning Committee approves the revised ELDP and supporting background papers and subject to the appropriate Section 75's agreements being made in respect of the required educational infrastructural requirements, Children & Families has no objection to the proposed development.

Scottish Water comment

Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application. Since the introduction of the Water Services (Scotland) Act 2005 in April 2008 the water industry in Scotland has opened up to market competition for non-domestic customers. Non-domestic Household customers now require a Licensed Provider to act on their behalf for new water and waste water connections. Further details can be obtained at www.scotlandontap.gov.uk.

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 may have capacity to service this proposed development.

Water Network - Our initial investigations have highlighted their may be a requirement for the Developer to carry out works on the local network to ensure there is no loss of service to existing customers. The Developer should discuss the implications directly with Scottish Water.

Edinburgh Wastewater Treatment Works - there may be limited capacity to serve this new demand. The Developer should discuss their development directly with Scottish Water.

Wastewater Network - Our initial investigations have highlighted their may be a requirement for the Developer to carry out works on the local network to ensure there is no loss of service to existing customers. The Developer should discuss the implications directly with Scottish Water.

In some circumstances it may be necessary for the Developer to fund works on existing infrastructure to enable their development to connect. Should we become aware of any issues such as flooding, low pressure, etc the Developer will be required to fund works to mitigate the effect of the development on existing customers. Scottish Water can make a contribution to these costs through Reasonable Cost funding rules.

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. Developers should discuss delivery timescales directly with us.

If this development requires the existing network to be upgraded, to enable connection, the developer will generally meet these costs in advance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 32 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Scottish Water can make a contribution to these costs through Reasonable Cost funding rules. Costs can be reimbursed by us through Reasonable Cost funding rules

A totally separate drainage system may 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 outwith public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s). This should be done through a deed of servitude.

It is possible this proposed development may involve building over or obstruct access to existing Scottish Water infrastructure. On receipt of an application Scottish Water will provide advice that will require to be implemented by the developer to protect our existing apparatus.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 20 May 2015 Page 33 of 33 14/01446/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/05255/FUL At 14, 16-18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh, EH7 5PS Demolish of existing steel framed warehouse buildings and subsequent 240 bed student accommodation development with associated external landscaping.

Item number Report number

Wards A12 - Leith Walk

Summary

The proposal complies with parts a) and b) of Policy Hou 10 in the adopted Edinburgh City Local Plan and would not result in an excessive concentration of students within the locale. Approval is recommended subject to the conditions and informatives set out in this report.

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 20.05.2015.

The application was continued for the following reasons:-

 Further discussions with the developer with a view to increasing cycle parking provision to between 50-75% of total bedspaces, and  To consult with the Council's Economic Development Department on the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of employment land and impact on neighbouring businesses as required by Policy Emp 4.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 32 14/05255/FUL

This additional information is included in the addendum to the report.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD1, CITD3, CITD4, CITD5, CITD6, CITE3,

this application CITE9, CITE12, CITE17, CITE18, CITOS1, CITH4, CITH10, CITEM4, CITT2, CITT3, CITT4, CITT5, NSG, NSGD02, NSGSTU, NSMDV,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site extends to approximately 0.5 hectares and slopes from Bothwell Street towards its rear boundary to the south. Access to the site is currently from Bothwell Street. A second access from Sunnyside exists, under Bothwell Street, but is currently gated off.

The site contains three industrial buildings and an area of open space. The main industrial building is vacant. The two smaller buildings are a commercial garage and an office and are also vacant.

The existing small residential amenity space (0.085 ha) is Council owned and has been assessed to be of low quality in the Open Space Audit 2010.

The site is surrounded on three sides by housing; four and five storey tenement buildings on Bothwell Street, a two storey former printing works on Edina Place and two storey housing at Norton Park. The former printing works is a category B listed building (LB reference 30271, dated 15.11.1991).

The site also shares a boundary with disused railway land to the east. This land is part of housing allocation HSG 4 (the Lochend Butterfly housing site) in the Edinburgh City Local Plan (ECLP) and contains a Transport Safeguard (for a footpath/cycleway or public transport service) immediately adjacent to the site. The housing allocation remains in the Second Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) (HSG 12). The Transport Safeguard also remains.

2.2 Site History

7 January 1998 - planning permissions were granted for the change of use of the smaller units from workshop yard to self drive hire units (application numbers 97/02287/FUL and 97/12287/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 32 14/05255/FUL

25 October 2012- Planning Committee were minded to grant an application to demolish the existing warehouse buildings and develop residential development with associated car parking and public realm. The proposed legal agreement was not signed and a decision never issued. (12/01212/FUL).

Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing buildings and for the development of new purpose built student residential accommodation in one block of six-storey flats. This will provide a total of 240 bedrooms in a mixture of cluster bedrooms and self- contained studio units. The development comprises a mix of 78 studio units and 162 en-suite cluster bedroom flats. The main entrance provides access to the reception and management suite for the scheme, together with a common room, laundry facilities and cycle store.

The proposal extends the massing and building line of the existing tenement on the south of Bothwell Street into the site. The building then runs adjacent to the perimeter of the site boundary before terminating with an active gable next to the dismantled railway line.

The building is predominantly six storeys in height and incorporates windows styled similar to a traditional sash and case giving a vertical appearance to the building's fenestration. The proposal is very similar in appearance to the flatted development which was minded to grant in October 2012. However, the previously approved housing scheme included open access balconies on the north elevation which are not included in this proposal.

Buff facing brick is the primary material proposed. Other materials incorporated into the scheme are zinc surround feature windows.

The existing public open space to the north of the site, fronting onto Bothwell Street, is to be upgraded by the developer for use by the local community as well as the students. The park is currently in CEC ownership and has been assessed to be of low quality in the Open Space Audit 2010.

Access for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians is to be taken from Bothwell Street. Twenty one parking spaces are provided for staff and visitors. There are 47 cycle spaces provided in a secure cycle store to the rear of the site.

There is a secondary access off Sunnyside for pedestrians and cyclists only. This section of road will have bollards to stop vehicles obtaining access to the development.

Supporting Statement

The applicant has submitted a supporting statement, a design and access statement, a sustainability appraisal, a tree survey and a stage 1 quality audit including a parking statement. These documents can be viewed on the Planning and Building Standards Online Service.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 32 14/05255/FUL

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 the development is acceptable;

(b) the proposals preserve or enhance the setting of the listed building;

(d) the proposal is detrimental to the amenity of neighbours;

(e) the proposal is acceptable in terms of road safety and parking and drainage;

(f) the proposal is acceptable in terms of other material considerations;

(g) any equalities and human rights issues have been addressed; and

(h) material representations have been addressed. a) Principle of Development

Paragraph 6.37 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan acknowledges there is a need for more purpose built student housing and that it is preferable, in principle, that student needs are met, as far as possible, in purpose built and managed schemes rather than in the widespread conversion and use of family stock.

The proposals need to demonstrate they are consistent with the relevant policy criteria in ECLP Hou 10 (Student Housing) (a) and (b). The non-statutory guideline on student housing is supplementary to the Edinburgh City Local Plan Hou 10 and is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The criteria in ECLP Policy Hou 10 are applied to proposals for student accommodation using the locational guidance set out in the guideline.

Part (a) of Policy Hou 10 requires that the location is appropriate in terms of access to public transport, university and college facilities. At the west end of Bothwell Street is Easter Road which is well served by a number of bus routes. There are a number of universities within walking distance of the development. Edinburgh University main campus is approximately 1.7 miles walking distance and Moray House is 1.2 miles from the proposed development. This development therefore complies with Part a) of Policy Hou 10 in relation to student housing.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Policy Hou 10 (b) states that the proposal must not result in an excessive concentration of student accommodation in any one locality.

Student housing is generally acceptable in and adjacent to main campuses. In other locations with good access to university and college facilities by public transport purpose built student accommodation will be acceptable provided it does not result in a student population of 30% or more in the locality. The area is characterised by a range of land uses including residential, retail and office use. The site is located a short walk from Easter Road which has a bustling commercial character. The site is located in data zone SO1002209 and is immediately adjacent to two data zones SO1002183 and SO1002198. The average student concentration across these three data zones is 10.66. An additional 240 bedspaces would increase the concentration to 18.53%. This is below the 30% threshold and would therefore comply with Part (b) of Policy Hou 10. The calculations are based on the 2011 census information which is the most-up-to- date source.

Open Space

The current small area of open space within the site boundary (under CEC ownership) was assessed to be of a low quality in the Open Space Audit 2010. The proposed site layout results in this open space being upgraded and improved for the use of the students and local residents. The owner has been in negotiations with CEC and a purchase price has been agreed subject to planning approval for the student housing. The operator of the student housing will take over maintenance of the open space. Policy Os 1 Open Space Protection seeks to protect all open spaces which contribute to the amenity of their surroundings. This proposal achieves this by not only retaining, but enhancing a poor quality area which can then be used by the wider community. The proposal accords with Policy Os 1.

Employment Policy

ECLP Policy Emp 4 seeks to ensure that proposals for the redevelopment of sites which are or were last in employment use contribute to the city's stock of flexible small business premises. It requires proposals on such sites to include floorspace for a range of business users.

However, Policy Emp 9 part c) of the Second Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP), which will replace Policy Emp 4 of ECLP, states that business floorspace should be provided for a range of users if a site is larger than 1 hectare. As this site is less than that, the requirements for business floorspace would not apply. There were no representations to the first Proposed LDP objecting to the wording of Policy Emp 9. Considerable weight can therefore be given to Policy Emp 9 and it is not considered necessary to provide business space as part of this proposal.

In addition, the loss of employment land was considered acceptable in relation to the previous planning appliciation for housing which the Council was minded to grant.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Criterion b) and c) of ECLP Policy Emp 4 and parts a) and b) of policy Emp 9 of the Second Proposed LDP require development not to prejudice or inhibit activities of any nearby employment use and that the proposals should contribute to the comprehensive regeneration and improvement of the wider area. The proposals will not prejudice or inhibit activities of any nearby employment use and the redevelopment of the site will contribute to the improvement and wider regeneration of the area.

The principle of student housing development on this site is acceptable. b) Setting of the Listed Building

In terms of any impact on the adjacent B listed building on Edina Place, planning policy states that development should not be detrimental to the appearance or character of a listed building or to its setting.

The listed building is a flat roofed red brick building and although originally a printing works it has the appearance of a residential building. The principle frontage of the listed building is to the south onto Edina Place and this is unaffected.

The rear of the building, which is adjacent to the application site, mainly consists of hardstanding used for car parking. The application site currently contains a mix of industrial sheds of little merit within a relatively unkempt environment. The proposed development will run parallel to the listed building and although higher, will have a positive impact on the immediate surroundings. The listed building will no longer be as visible from Bothwell Street, though historically there was a tenement along Bothwell Street which would have blocked any views. As stated above this is also not the primary outlook of the building.

The proposed development will not negatively impact on the listed building or its setting. c) Scale, Design and Materials

The site is within an area that is predominantly characterised by existing tenements to the north with a mix of buildings to the south including the B listed formed print works on Edina Place.

The site is an irregular shape and the proposed development makes an efficient use of the land. The drop in level allows the development to extend up to six storeys without building higher than the tenements on Bothwell Street resulting in a positive relationship with neighbouring buildings.

The building proposed is an elongated 'v' -shape that continues the line of the existing tenements on the south side of Bothwell Street then turning to run parallel with the site boundary to the south east. This layout enables the existing area of open space to be retained and enhanced. It provides access to the dismantled railway and allows views onto the new building from the Easter Road end of Bothwell Street.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 32 14/05255/FUL

The western section of the building contains vertically proportioned windows which reference the existing tenement, whilst the use of timber cladding panelling breaks up the elevations and helps to maintain the rhythm of the existing tenement. A set back at the roof top level adds visual interest.

There are protected key views near to the site. Most of the view cones do not cover the site, whilst the development will not be visible in the key view (reference N5A) from Pilrig Park to Arthur's Seat.

The primary material proposed is a buff facing brick, metal effect cladding for the set back on the roof top level and timber boarding. The simple palette of materials proposed and the use of brick is appropriate in this context. It is important that the brick and the mortar are specified to harmonise with the surrounding stone buildings, consequently, conditions are recommended to ensure the materials are of a sufficient quality.

The design, scale and layout of the proposed building are acceptable subject to conditions in relation to materials. d) Amenity and open space

Objections have been received in relation to the residential amenity of existing residents in the vicinity of the site. Concerns have been put forward in relation to infringement of privacy and impact on daylighting.

Privacy

The minimum recommended distance for privacy is 18m from window to window. The majority of the block exceeds this distance with the building on Edina Place being at least 28m away, whilst 9-13 Bothwell Street is at a distance of 23m at its nearest point.

To the south/east of the site are the flatted two storey properties at Norton Park. The proposed building is pulled back away from the site boundary by 10 metres, double that of the existing industrial unit. Number 15 has a blank gable and the building does not look into the site. Number 16 does face into the site but is orientated in such a way which avoids direct overlooking. The proposals are acceptable in relation to privacy.

Daylighting

Information was submitted in relation to daylighting for the previous scheme of 71 residential units. This proposal is the same height, footprint and massing of that development. The diagram submitted indicated that the window on the existing ground floor flat at 26-36 Bothwell Street does not comply with the 25 degree method. In such circumstances, and in historical areas, the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of relevant windows should pass the test to achieve a VSC of at least 27%. The VSC has been demonstrated to be 27.25% and therefore the amount of daylight reaching windows on the existing tenement is not adversely affected.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Open Space and Landscaping

Landscaping details including a tree survey have been provided. These show the arrangement of both the private and public areas of open space.

The tree survey provides details of the current nine trees on site which are all within the current residential amenity space. It is proposed that all the current trees are to be removed. Seven of the trees to be removed are of poor health, whilst the remaining two will conflict with construction or removal will aid in providing a more cohesive reinstatement plan. The trees are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and the site is not within a conservation area.

The main visual impact of the current trees is the line along Bothwell Street. The proposed replacement trees will provide a similar line delineating the open space. A total of 29 trees are proposed within the overall site.

The reshaped area of open space will be upgraded with the establishment of a public park, new trees, low shrub planting, a perimeter of low wall with railings and benches. The upgrades will improve the standard of open space whilst being of a size that will meet the local greenspace standard in this area as set out in the Open Space Strategy.

Proposed private open space for the development includes student garden areas to the south edge, fruit trees and bushes. To the north of the site adjacent to nos 26 to 34 Bothwell Street, there are three raised beds for herbs/vegetables.

The landscaping has been considered as part of the application and the general layout and planting indicated is satisfactory. A landscape statement has been submitted. The applicant has also submitted a detailed planting schedule, external planting specification, a planting management and maintenance plan and details of paving and street furniture.

The proposals accord with policy ECLP Policy Hou 3 Private Open Space and Policy Des 5 External Spaces. e) Transport and Drainage

The site is currently accessed from Bothwell Street with a secondary access available from Sunnyside, though this is currently gated off. The existing area of open space is to be re-aligned to provide a new access into the site. Sunnyside will be used by pedestrians and cyclists only. Consideration has been given to providing adequate turning facilities for refuse and emergency vehicles.

A Stage 1 Quality Audit has been provided. This sets out the approach taken to road design. Transport has raised no objections to the suitability of the access to the site and the arrangements are acceptable.

The site is just outside the city centre's controlled parking zone. There is limited off street parking for existing residents in Bothwell Street. The student accommodation provider is to discourage the use of cars by each student and have it written into their management plan that private cars are not permitted.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 32 14/05255/FUL

The development can be car free, but 21 spaces are being provided for disabled badge holders/visitors and/or members of staff. Transport has requested that the applicant enter into a suitable legal agreement to make a financial contribution towards city car club provision.

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement indicating the level of parking on Bothwell Street at various times of the day and night. Transport has assessed this against a travel survey carried out on the modal split of students at six campuses in Edinburgh. A very low percentage (4%) use private car. In light of this, Transport consider that the proposed development will have little impact on the existing road network.

The site is in an accessible location close to Easter Road and London Road which have good bus services. It is within walking distance of the city centre and Waverley Train Station. The proposals include a future link to the adjacent railway line which is safeguarded for a cycle/footpath link. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards transport promotion measures including contributions to or provision of public transport tickets. They have also agreed to provide a public and sustainable transport information pack to help embed public transport habits. The site is within Zone 3 of the proposed tram line. Based on the type and scale of the development a tram contribution is required.

A secure cycle store will be provided to the north east of the site and adjacent to the proposed safeguarded cycle route. The link to this long term cycle route will be safeguarded.

An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) was not requested for this proposal as the car parking provision is reduced from the previous proposal of 71residential units. Environmental Assessment has no objection to the proposal and recommends an informative is attached advising on electric vehicle charging and boilers. They also suggest conditions relating to a site survey and any remedial/protective measures.

Drainage proposals for the site have been submitted along with a surface water managment plan. Flood Prevention asked for additional information relating to calculations and these have been submitted. Transport has asked for a condition relating to SUDS maintenance.

Overall, the site is in a highly accessible location. The proposed transport arrangements are acceptable subject to a legal agreement in relation to tram, public transport promotion measures and city car club. f) Other material considerations

Waste Management

The proposal includes an internal communal bin store. This will accommodate ten 1,100 ltr bins to meet the needs of the students.

Archaeology

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 32 14/05255/FUL

The city archaeologist has identified the site as being within the historic Maryfield Estate with the potential for remains of 19th century industry. The site is likely to be of low-moderate archaeological impact and there are no objections on archaeological grounds subject to a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work prior to development.

Sustainability

The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement in support of the application. The proposal complies with the requirements of Part A of the Edinburgh Standards for Sustainable Buildings.

The proposal has been classed as a major development and has been assessed against Part B of the standards. The points achieved against the essential criteria are set out in the table below:

Essential Criteria Available Achieved

Section 1: Energy Needs 20 20 Section 2: Water conservation 10 10 Section 3: Surface water run off 10 10 Section 4: Recycling 10 10 Section 5: Materials 30 30 Total points 80 80

The proposal meets the essential criteria. In addition the applicants have provided a commitment to further sustainability measures as set out in the desirable elements. Additional measures include the provision of city car club spaces and the provision of a local recycling point. g) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No adverse impacts were identified. h) Public comments

Material representations:

 Comments have been raised that the massing of the building is too domineering. This is addressed in 3.3 c).  Comments have been raised that daylight will be blocked out from Bothwell Street. This issue is addressed in 3.3 d).  Comments have expressed concern about the overdevelopment of the site due to lack of open space and car parking. These are addressed in 3.3 d) and e).  Comments have raised concerns that the development fails to directly serve any university or college campus. This is addressed in 3.3 a).  Concern has been expressed that the area is being inundated with student flats. This is addressed in 3.3 a).  Concern has been raised about possible worsening traffic problems on Easter Road and Bothwell Street. This is addressed in 3.3 e).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 32 14/05255/FUL

 Concern has been raised about the drastic alteration of Bothwell Street as a quiet cul-de-sac. This is addressed in 3.3 d).  Concern has been raised about problems for emergency vehicles accessing Bothwell Street. This is addressed in 3.3 e).  A comment has been made that the 2011 student housing stats are out of date. This is addressed in 3.3 a).  Concerns have been raised that the density is too high for the street. This is addressed in 3.3 a).

Conclusion

Addendum to Assessment

The application was considered at the Development Management Sub-Committee on 20 May 2015. Committee requested further information on a) increased cycle parking provision; b) the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of employment land; and c) impact on neighbouring businesses as required by Policy Emp 4. a) Increased Cycle Provision

The applicant has submitted a revised drawing showing increased cycling provision. The proposal now shows three separate locations for cycle parking. The facility identified in the original drawing adjacent to the safeguarded railway line has capacity for 80 cycles. An additional facility with capacity for 60 cycles is proposed on land previously shown as raised beds for herbs/vegetables located next to the Sunnyside link. These two facilities will provide 140 cycle spaces (58% provision in relation to number of bedspaces). A third location, adjacent to the student gardens to the south of the development, is shown as having potential for 40 cycles if needed. It is recommended that cycle parking should be provided at all three locations in order to create spaces for 180 cycles (75% of the total bed spaces). Condition 6 of the report has been amended requiring the details of the proposed cycle facilities to be submitted to the Council for approval. b) Loss of Employment Land

The Council's Economic Development Department provided comments in response to the consultation on this proposal. Following the Committee meeting on 20 May 2015, the applicant submitted a supporting economic statement and a response to the comments from Economic Development.

Economic Development has indicated that the proposed redevelopment would result in the loss of 1,229m2 (13,228 sq ft) of industrial space, equivalent to 19 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs if fully let. The proposed student housing is projected to support between 19 and 38 FTE jobs across Scotland via expenditure by the students.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 32 14/05255/FUL

The applicant's supporting economic statement suggests that the proposed 240 student bed spaces will generate around 100 jobs linked to student expenditure. In addition, it will create temporary construction jobs and nine FTE management, administration and maintenance posts.

Economic Development recognises that the area is unsuitable for general industrial uses. However it is suggested that in light of the shortage of small industrial units across Edinburgh, new small Class 4 business units could be provided as part of the development.

Such uses could provide additional employment but Economic Development recognises that this may be challenging to deliver in this location. This is because the poor accessibility of the site would restrict the number of potential occupiers and the likelihood of weak covenants on short term leases will require active management. The applicant has stated that the development of employment space in this location is not viable and would adversely affect the re-development prospects of this brownfield site.

ECLP Policy EMP 4 seeks the provision of small business space as part of proposals for the redevelopment of sites last in employment use such as this. However, Policy Emp 9 of the Second Proposed Local Development (LDP), which will replace Policy Emp 4 of ECLP, only requires business floorspace to be provided if the site is larger than one hectare. This site is only 0.5 hectares and therefore the requirement to provide business floorspace would not apply. There were no representations to the Second Proposed LDP objecting to the wording of Policy Emp 9 and therefore considerable weight should be given to it.

Whilst the provision of small business units may be desirable from an Economic Development viewpoint, the emerging LDP policy on this matter doesn't require it. Furthermore, the Council was minded to grant the previous planning application for housing with no provision made for business space. c) Impact on neighbouring uses

Economic Development does not consider that the development would prejudice or inhibit the activities of any nearby employment use given that the surrounding commercial occupiers already co-exist with residential occupiers. As a number of the commercial occupiers offer goods and services aimed at households, they could potentially benefit from increased local custom.

Based on the above additional information, it is recommended that the Committee approves the application subject to conditions in respect of land contamination, materials, archaeology, vehicular bollards at Sunnyside, and cycling provision standards.

Tram contribution, public transport promotion measures and city car club provision will be covered by legal agreement.

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 13 of 32 14/05255/FUL

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Conditions:-

1. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

(a) A site survey (including initial desk study as a minimum) must be carried out to establish to the satisfaction of the Head of Planning and Building Standards, 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 Head of Planning and Building Standards.

2. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the superstructure or above ground works, sample panels, to be no less than 1.5m X 1.5m, shall be produced, demonstrating each proposed external material and accurately indicating the quality and consistency of future workmanship, and submitted for written approval by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

3. Prior to the commencement of development, specification and architectural details at a 1:5 or 1:10 scale of the proposed timber cladding shall be submitted for written approval by the Head of Planning and Building Standards. These details should set out the thickness of the timber which should not be less than 19mm finished size: the type of fixings, which should be specified to ensure no staining of the timber; and how the ends of the timber will be protected to ensure that moisture absorption is prevented.

4. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (excavation, analysis and reporting, publication) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

5. The proposed link to Sunnyside should be safeguarded for pedestrians and cyclists only with the installation of vehicular bollards.

6. The proposed cycle parking to be provided on the 3 locations shown on the approved site plan and landscape drawing (03B, 2650(PL) 02.Rev C). Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed cycle parking regarding specification, design and security to be submitted to the Head of Planning and Building Standards for approval. Cycle stand products should meet the criteria of ease of use and provide secure locking points or wheels/frame.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 14 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Reasons:-

1. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.

2. In order to ensure the adequacy of external building materials.

3. In order to demonstrate that the proposed timber cladding will be durable and retain a high visual quality.

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

5. In order to protect the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

6. In order to ensure the adequacy of facilities for cyclists.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

4. For the duration of development, between the commencement of development on the site until its completion, a notice shall be: displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site of the development; readily visible to the public; and printed on durable material.

5. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures identified in the approved Sustainability Statement Form. The applicant should submit a Self Declaration Form to the Head of Planning and Building Standards on completion and prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed.

6. Where provided electric vehicle charge points should be installed in accordance with Transport Scotland's 'Switched on Scotland': A Roadmap to widespread Adoption of Plug-in Vehicles' (2013). In particular the charge points should include a 70 or 50kW (32 Amp) AC unit. The DC charge should be delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets and the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. The outlet must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 15 of 32 14/05255/FUL

7. When available the applicant should provide details of all the boilers to Environmental Assessment to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act 1993 or as minimum all gas-fired boilers to meet a minimum standard of _40mgNOx/KWh.

8. The applicant should contact the Council's Private Rented Sector Team to ensure that the Scottish HMO standards are met.

9. Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary.

10. Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a 'fail-safe' manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic ie by a 'possession' which must be booked via Network Rail's asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

11. The proposed development access road will not be adopted for maintenance purposes by the Council. This will require the inclusion in the deeds of a statement that the owners will not be able to put forward the road for adoption. This in no way affects its status as a road, under the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, over which the public have a right of passage. The applicant should be aware that the Council will therefore not be liable for maintenance of the road, parking areas, street lighting nor any other part of the development but that it must be open for public passage at all times. Therefore no gates or other obstructions will be permitted.

12. The pedestrian/cycle access to Sunnyside should be built to an adoptable standard and will be subject to Road Construction Consent.

13. The pedestrian /cycle access to the disused railway should be built to an adoptable standard and will provide a right of passage.

14. A Certificate of Technical Approval may be required from the City of Edinburgh Council's Structures Department, to safeguard the integrity of the retaining wall at Sunnyside. To ensure that any works to the park do not affect the structural integrity of the wall.

15. Any works affecting the existing carriageway/footway on Bothwell Street or Sunnyside must be carried out in accordance with 'Development Roads- Guidelines and Specification'.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 16 of 32 14/05255/FUL

16. Legal Agreement

The applicant will be required to enter into a suitable legal agreement in respect of the following:

 A tram contribution of £70,395;  A travel plan to include a financial contribution to transport promotion measures; and  City Car Club provision.

17. A monitor capable of receiving an internet connection to display Public Transport Real time information should be displayed in the reception area to advise patrons of public transport.

18. The developer must submit a maintenance schedule for the SUDS infrastructure for the approval of Head of Transport. This is to ensure there is no discharge of water onto the public road 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. No adverse impacts were identified. Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

This application meets the sustainability requirements of the Edinburgh Design Guidance. Consultation and engagement

8.1 Pre-Application Process

A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted and registered on 17 September 2014.

Copies of the notice were also sent to:

 Leith Central Community Council;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 17 of 32 14/05255/FUL

 Craigentinny & Meadowbank Community Council;  Leith Neighbourhood Partnership;  Craigentinny/ Duddingston Neighbourhood Partnership; and  Leith Ward Councillors.

A public consultation event was held on 11 November 2014 at McDonald Road Library. 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 Buillding Standards Online Services.

A pre-application report on the proposals was presented to the Committee on 3 December 2014.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Fifteen representations were received - 13 objections, one letter of support and one comment. These include objections from the Cockburn Association and Sheila Gilmore MP.

Material issues raised were:-

 Massing of the proposal is domineering;  Daylight will be blocked out from Bothwell Street;  Overdevelopment of site due to lack of open space and car parking;  Fails to directly serve any university or college campus;  Area is being inundated with student flats;  Worsening traffic problems on Easter Road and Bothwell Street;  Drastic alteration of character of quiet cul-de-sac;  Problems for emergency vehicles accessing Bothwell Street;  Student housing stats for 2011 are out of date; and  Density is too high for street. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 18 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is within the Urban Area, as shown on the Edinburgh City Local Plan Proposals Map, and general housing and employment policies apply. The site also contains an area of designated open space.

Date registered 6 January 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1,2,3A,4,5A,6,7A,8A,9A,10A,11a,12,13,14,15,16.,

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Lesley Porteous, Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3203 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

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 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.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 19 of 32 14/05255/FUL

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

Policy Env 9 (Development of Sites of Archaeological Significance) sets out the circumstances in which development affecting sites of known or suspected archaeological significance will be permitted.

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

Policy Env 17 (Flood Protection) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on flood protection.

Policy Env 18 (Air, Water and Soil Quality) sets criteria for assessing the impact of development on air, water and soil quality.

Policy Os 1 (Open Space Protection) sets criteria for assessing the loss of open space.

Policy Hou 4 (Density) sets out the factors to be taken into account in assessing density levels in new development.

Policy Hou 10 (Student Housing) supports provision of student housing on suitable sites.

Policy Emp 4 (Employment Sites and Premises) sets out criteria for development proposals affecting business & industry sites and premises.

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 3m (Tram Contributions) requires contributions from developers towards the cost of tram works where the proposed tram network will help address the transport impacts of a development.

Policy Tra 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.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 20 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Non-statutory guidelines Student Housing Guidance interprets local plan policy, supporting student housing proposals in accessible locations provided that they will not result in an excessive concentration.

Non-statutory guidelines on 'MOVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT' establish design criteria for road and parking layouts.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 21 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Archaeology - response dated 7 January 2015

Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning the above planning application for the demolition of the existing steel-framed warehouse buildings and subsequent construction of a 240 bed student accommodation development with external landscaping.

The site lies within the historic Maryfield Estate. Historic maps indicate that the site and surrounding area remained largely farmland until the spread of industry and railway into the area during the mid-19th century. The 1850's first Edition OS map of the site still shows the site as open ground, with a burn (leading to Lochend Loch Restalrig) forming the southern boundary of the site. The 1876 OS map shows the affects of industrialisation of the area with sites eastern boundary now defined by then new North British Railway-line and the construction directly to the south of a large glass works. The 1893 OS map shows further industrialisation across the sites southern boundary with the addition of the Edina Engineering Works. The first building appear on the site between 1907 and 1910, though its function is not known

Accordingly this site has been identified as occurring within an area of archaeological potential in particular relating to 19th century industry. 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 ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

Having assessed the probable impact of this proposed development, it is considered that on current information such a proposal would be regarded as having a low- moderate archaeological impact. Ground-breaking works associated with the demolition of the current warehouses and the construction of the new development could disturb significant remains associated with the 19th century industrial development of this area in particular the adjacent glass works.

Accordingly it is recommended that the following condition be attached consent, if granted, to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to/during demolition and construction in order to excavate, record and analysis any significant archaeological deposits that may be uncovered.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 22 of 32 14/05255/FUL

'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) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

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

Bridges and Structures - response dated 14 January 2015

Please see queries/issues noted below regarding flood risk assessment and drainage strategy for the application as stated above. Flood Risk

The proposed development is located a significant distance from any watercourses and is not located within the SEPA fluvial flood map extent. The proposed development is not considered to be at fluvial flood risk.

An area of ponding is noted to the south of the proposed development indicated in the SEPA pluvial flood map. The drainage system for the must ensure the area of pluvial flood risk is note exacerbated by the proposed development. This must be clearly demonstrated by a robust site drainage strategy. Drainage Strategy

No drainage strategy document has been provided by the applicant, though drawing J3128-001 includes notes with regards to the design of the proposed system.

The maximum discharge to the combined sewer is stated to be 2.5l/s based on the minimum recommended orifice in Sewers for Scotland (75mm). The applicant must provide calculations to support the stated discharge rate. The applicant must also provide confirmation that Scottish Water have accepted the connection and the discharge rate.

As stated CEC Flood Prevention require the 1 in 200 year rainfall event plus 20% allowance for climate change to be attenuated within the site boundary. A MicroDrainage model is required to show that the proposed drainage system can convey and store the 1 in 200 year plus climate change event and to show none of the buildings within the development boundary are at flood risk. Results should be referenced to a plan of the proposed drainage system.

As noted above a large area of ponding is indicated to the south of the proposed development. Pre and post development flow paths are required to assess any impact on flood risk to surrounding properties.

Police Scotland - response dated 4 February 2015

I am writing on behalf of Police Scotland regarding the above planning application for a 240-bed student accommodation development at 16-18 Bothwell Street, Edinburgh.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 23 of 32 14/05255/FUL

It is strongly recommended that the architect and client meet with a Police Architectural Liaison Officer to discuss Secured by Design principles and crime prevention through environmental design.

Network Rail - response dated 28 January 2015

Thank you for consulting Network Rail regarding the above development. Whilst Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposal, due to its close proximity to the operational railway, we would request that the following matters are taken into account, and if necessary and appropriate included as conditions or advisory notes, if granting the application:

The railway can be a dangerous environment. Suitable barriers must be put in place by the applicant to prevent unauthorised and unsafe access to the railway.

If not already in place, the applicant must provide a suitable trespass proof fence of at least 1.8 metres in height adjacent to Network Rail's boundary and provision for the fence's future maintenance and renewal should be made. We recommend a 1.8 metre high 'rivetless palisade' or 'expanded mesh' fence. Network Rail's existing boundary measure must not be removed without prior permission.

Buildings should be situated at least 2 metres from Network Rail's boundary. The applicant must ensure that the construction and subsequent maintenance of proposed buildings can be carried out without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon, Network Rail's adjacent land.

Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary.

Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer before development can commence. Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development.

Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 24 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Where any works cannot be carried out in a "fail-safe" manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a "possession" which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

The developer must contact our Asset Protection Engineers regarding the above matters, contact details below:

Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer 151 St. Vincent Street, GLASGOW, G2 5NW Tel: 0141 555 4087 E-mail - [email protected]

We trust full cognisance will be taken of these comments. We would be grateful if Local Planning Authorities would provide a copy of the Decision Notice.

Environmental Assessment - response dated 9 February 2015

Planning permission is sought for demolition, change of use and new build to provide managed student accommodation, communal area on the ground floor together with associated facilities, access, 15 parking spaces and cycle parking. The site is located within a residential area with existing residential properties located to the north, west, and south. To the east there are further residential properties separated by a railway line.

Air Quality

There has been a recent planning application made on the site for 71 residential units 2012. The current proposal is to use the same building envelope and heights as within the previous application but providing 240 bed student accommodation rather than 71 flats. The latest proposal has reduced car parking numbers to fifteen. Environmental Assessment had no objection to the previous scheme subject to an air quality impact assessment being submitted. As this latest development proposes a lower level of car parking Environmental Assessment did not request a further air quality impact assessment. Al though it is noted that the city centre air quality management area was extended in 2013 to include Easter Road, which is in close proximity to the site.

It is highlighted in Edinburgh's Local Transport Strategy 2014-2019 that the Council seeks to support increased use of low emission vehicles and support the extension of the network of EV charging points.

The City of Edinburgh Parking Standards for Development Management also now encourages the use of EVs. It states that the Council is likely to introduce a requirement for EV charging infrastructure which depends on how charging technology evolves this includes:

Dedicated parking spaces with charging facilities.

Ducting and infrastructure to allow electric vehicles to be readily accommodated in the future.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 25 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Developers should now consider the potential for EV charging as they develop their proposals. Based on currently available technology Environmental Assessment recommends that at least one electric vehicle charging outlet should be of the following standard:

70 or 50kW (32 Amp) DC with 43kW (32 Amp) AC unit. DC charge delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets, the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. Must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

It should be noted that support is available to developers to adopt EV's through the Energy Saving Trust's Sustainable Transport Advice Service and Interest Free Low Carbon Loans.

Grants are also available for the installation of EV charge points for workplaces, with 100% funding currently available for installations up to £10,000. More information can be found at http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/Organisations/Transport/Electric- vehicles/Electric-Vehicle-Charge-Point-Funding

The Scottish Government and Local Authorities are working to decrease their fuel- based vehicles, replacing them with electric vehicles. Scottish Government funding has enabled the purchase of more than 270 vehicles for the public sector fleet including many Lothian based University vehicles which would make good use of a charging point at this location.

If the applicant installs a centralised boiler exceeding 366.4 kilowatts then a chimney height calculation will be required in accordance with the Clean Air Act 1993. Otherwise if the applicant proposes installing individual gas fired boilers then all gas-fired boilers should meet a minimum standard of <40mgNOx/KWh.

Therefore Environmental Assessment recommends an informative is attached to any consent advising on electric vehicle charging and boilers.

Noise

Environmental Assessment recommends that the applicant contacts the Councils Private Tented Sector Team to ensure that the Scottish Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) standards are met. Environmental Assessment deems the railway line is far enough away to ensure that residential amenity will not be adversely affected.

Contaminated Land

The applicant has submitted a Site Investigation Report which is currently being assessed by Environmental Assessment. Until this has been completed Environmental Assessment recommends that a condition is attached to ensure that contaminated land is fully addressed.

In conclusion Environmental Assessment offers no objection to this application subject to the following condition;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 26 of 32 14/05255/FUL

1. Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

(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

Informative;

2. The electric vehicle charge points required should be installed in accordance with Transport Scotland's 'Switched on Scotland: A Roadmap to Widespread Adoption of Plug-in Vehicles' (2013). In particular the charge points should include a 70 or 50kW (32 Amp) DC with 43kW (32 Amp) AC unit. The DC charge should be delivered via both JEVS G105 and 62196-3 sockets and the AC supply by a 62196-2 socket. The outlet must have the ability to be de-rated to supply 25kW to any two of the three outlets simultaneously.

3. When available the applicant shall provide details of all the boilers to Environmental Assessment to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act 1993 or as minimum all gas- fired boilers to meet a minimum standard of <40mgNOx/KWh.

4. Environmental Assessment recommends that the applicant contacts the Councils Private Tented Sector Team to ensure that the Scottish HMO standards are met.

Transport Planning - dated 7 April 2015

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

1. The proposed development access road will not be adopted for maintenance purposes by the Council. This will require the inclusion in the deeds of a statement that the owners will not be able to put forward the road for adoption. This in no way affects its status as a road, under the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, over which the public have a right of passage. The applicant should be aware that the Council will therefore not be liable for the maintenance of the road, parking areas, street lighting nor any other part of the development but that it must be open for public passage at all times. Therefore no gates or other obstructions will be permitted;

2. Vehicular access via Sunnyside is restricted by the bridge, the proposed link to Sunnyside should be for pedestrian and cyclists only;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 27 of 32 14/05255/FUL

3. The pedestrian/cycle access to Sunnyside should be built to an adoptable standard and will be subject to Road Construction Consent;

4. The pedestrian/cycle access to the disused railway should be built to an adoptable standard and will provide a right of a passage;

5. A Certificate of Technical Approval may be required from the City of Edinburgh Council's Structures Department, to safeguard the integrity of the retaining wall at Sunnyside. To ensure that any works to the park do not affect the structural integrity of the wall;

6. Submit a draft Travel Plan and Management Agreement prior to first occupation and a final Travel Plan within 3 months of that date. The Travel Plan to be monitored on a 6 monthly cycle for years and to include financial contribution to transport promotion measures, including contributions to, or provision of, public transport season tickets and the provision of a public and sustainable transport information pack. Reason - To encourage more sustainable travel modes in line with the Local Transport Strategy policy LU 3.

7. Refuse storage facilities should be within 30 metres of an area which can be accessed by a refuse removal vehicle;

8. A monitor capable of receiving an internet connection to display Public Transport Real Time information should be displayed in the reception area. (Reason to advise patrons of public transport); 9. Any works affecting the existing carriageway/footway on Bothwell Street or Sunnyside must be carried out in accordance with "Development Roads - Guidelines and Specification". See pages 5, 15 & 16 of

10. The proposed cycle parking to be to the Council's satisfaction regarding specification, design, security and location. Cycle stand products should meet the criteria of ease of use and provide secure locking points for wheels/frame;

11. The visitor cycle parking for the development should be located at convenient locations, near the main entrances;

12. The developer must submit a maintenance schedule for the Suds infrastructure for the approval of Head of Transport. This is to ensure there is no discharge of water onto the public road network.

Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to provide:-

1. A financial contribution to the Edinburgh Tram of £70,395 in line with the approved Tram Line Developer Contributions report (based on 240 bed student accommodation in Zone 3).

2. A financial contribution to transport promotion measures, including contributions to or provision of public transport season tickets. The provision of a public and sustainable transport information pack, in order to help embed public transport habits and encourage modal shift.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 28 of 32 14/05255/FUL

3. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to provide the sum of £7,000 towards car club provision;

Note

Current Council car parking standards for student accommodation within this area (Zone 3a) requires a minimum of 1 space per 12 beds which equates to 20, and a maximum of 1 space per 6 beds which equates to 40. Based on 10 staff a minimum of 1 per 4 staff which would equate to 3, and a maximum of 1 per 2 staff which equates to 5. The applicant proposes to provide 20 parking spaces therefore meets the minimum parking requirements.

The site is in the boundary of the city centre controlled parking zones but is not included. There is limited off street parking for existing residents. The student accommodation provider is to discourage the use of cars by each student and have it written into their management plan that private cars are not permitted.

The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement that demonstrates that parking on Bothwell Street can be problematic and the surveys carried out would indicate that night time parking was higher than daytime parking and night time parking was lower at the weekend which may be due to local residents in surrounding streets within the parking control zone parking in Bothwell Street during the week to avoid parking charges rather than Day time parking levels could be exerted by commuter parking. A travel survey carried out by SKM Colin Buchanan in 2013, on behalf of the University of Edinburgh, considered the travel patterns of students attending 6 campuses plus 'other sites' making up the university. The 2013 survey indicated the following mode split of students to all destination campuses:

Walk 37%

Cycle 14%

Car Driver (alone) 4%

Car Driver (with passenger) 4%

Car Passenger 3%

Public Bus 29%

Shuttle Bus 5%

Rail 3%

In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development will have little impact on the existing road network.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 29 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Economic Development - response dated 22 May 2015

The following are comments from the City of Edinburgh Council’s Economic Development Service (EDS) which relate to the planning application 14/05255/FUL for the development of a 240-bedroom student housing complex.

Edinburgh's economic strategy, “A Strategy for Jobs 2012-17” aims to achieve sustainable economic growth through supporting the creation and safeguarding of jobs in Edinburgh. A key element of delivering jobs-driven economic growth is the provision of an adequate supply of workplaces.

The site in question is currently occupied by two industrial properties: a 972m2 (10,462 sq ft) warehouse at 14 Bothwell Street, and a 257m2 (2,766 sq ft) workshop at 16-18 Bothwell Street. Given average employment densities, these properties could be expected to support a total of 19 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs if fully occupied. It is recognised that the properties in question are of advanced age and that letting them on commercial terms may prove challenging.

There is a growing shortage of small industrial units in Edinburgh due to a combination of rising demand, the loss of existing stock as it is demolished, and the lack of speculative development of new units. Much of the existing stock was built between the 1960s and 1990s and is gradually becoming obsolescent. As of April 2015, there were just seven vacant industrial units of below (186m2) 2,000 sq ft in Edinburgh. In 2014, deals were transacted on 48 units of this size. This indicates the lack of space of this size and the need for new units to be developed. While units of this scale typically do not support large numbers of jobs, they provide a range of vital services and also act as “starter” units for small businesses that may expand to larger premises and employ additional workers as they grow.

The site is unsuitable for general industrial purposes. The main access to the site is via Bothwell Street, which is heavily used for on-street parking, and the site is accessed via a pair of sharp turns, meaning it would not be suitable for articulated lorries. The site is largely surrounded by residential units, which is likely to give rise to complaints if any noisy or odoriferous activities are carried out on site. There are successful industrial estates nearby at Abbeyhill and at Hawkhill Avenue, but these estates benefit from good access to arterial roads, separation from residential uses and economies of scale.

There is an existing cluster of light industrial units on Sunnyside including garages and five workshops ranging from 49m2 (527 sq ft) to 410m2 (4,413 sq ft), with tenants including upholsterers and a blind and shutter manufacture, along with the John Cotton Business Centre (which provides small office spaces, several of which are occupied by local not-for-profit organisations) and the Hibernian FC Supporters Association Club. The area therefore currently supports a mix of tradespeople and third sector organisations.

The site may therefore have potential to support light industrial uses, which do not have the same requirements for HGV access and can sit more comfortably alongside residential uses. In the context of the proposed development, these light industrial units could potentially be provided as ground floor units beneath the residential elements, as seen with the existing workshops beneath the flats at 15-19, 20-22 and 24-36 Bothwell Street.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 30 of 32 14/05255/FUL

The provision of a small number of workshops of approximately 46m2 (500 sq ft) to 139m2 (1,500 sq ft) – the floorplates for which there is greatest demand – at ground level could address the shortage of small light industrial units in Edinburgh, retain some employment uses on the site, and complement the existing workshops. As an indicative example, four units of 94m2 (1,112 sq ft) could be expected to support approximately 8 FTE jobs if fully occupied.

It is, however, recognised that there are challenges to successfully delivering light industrial units in this location. The poor accessibility of the site would restrict the number of potential occupiers. The nature of light industrial units – which are frequently occupied by small companies with weak covenants on short-term leases – means that active management is required for them to be successful. It is therefore recognised that the position of the developer may be that incorporating employment uses of this nature into the development is not financially viable.

Commentary on Proposed Uses

* Sui generis

The proposed development would deliver a 3,666m2 (39,460 sq ft) student housing complex comprising 240 bedrooms.

Data published by the University of Edinburgh indicates that monthly living costs for students in Edinburgh average £605 to £1,230 (including accommodation costs). Assuming a 32 week academic year, this would give a yearly expenditure figure of £4,840 to £9,840 per student. This suggests that, were the development to be fully occupied, the 240 students could be expected to spend a total of £1,161,600 to £2,361,600 on goods and services each year. Using Input/Output tables published by the Scottish Government, it can be calculated that this expenditure would directly and indirectly support a total of between 19 and 38 FTE jobs across Scotland.

It is not anticipated that the development would prejudice or inhibit the activities of any nearby employment use given that the surrounding commercial occupiers already co- exist with residential occupiers. As a number of the commercial occupiers offer goods and services aimed at households, they could potentially benefit from increased local custom.

Summary response to consultation

The proposed redevelopment would result in the loss of 1,229m2 (13,228 sq ft) of industrial space, equivalent to 19 FTE jobs if fully let. It is however recognised that the area is unsuitable for general industrial uses.

In light of the shortage of small industrial units across Edinburgh, it is considered that there is a rationale for providing new small – 46m2 (500 sq ft) to 139m2 (1,500 sq ft) – light industrial units on site. The Economic Development service would welcome the provision of small business space of this nature within the development.

The proposed development of a 240-bedroom student housing complex is projected to support between 19 and 38 FTE jobs across Scotland via expenditure by the students.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 31 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 32 of 32 14/05255/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 15/00700/FUL At Garage 32 Metres Southwest Of 8, Bellevue Crescent, Edinburgh Proposed change of use of domestic lock-up garage to form studio office accommodation.

Item number Report number

Wards A11 - City Centre

Summary

The proposed use does not comply with ENV6 and HOU8 policies in the Edinburgh City Local Plan, and the non-statutory guidance Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and will adversely impact on the character and amenity of the conservation area and the amenity of the predominantly residential area.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE6, CITH8, CRPNEW, NSLBCA, NSP,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 12 15/00700/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site is a single lock-up garage building at the rear of No 8 Bellevue Crescent. It is accessed off an unmade lane to the rear which leads off East Scotland Street Lane. The lane is characterised by an undulating and uneven gravel track surface serving the rear gardens, parking areas and garages as well as the local tennis courts. There are three other garages at the end of the lane, one of which is currently in studio office use as approved.

The site is at the rear of No 8 Bellevue Crescent which is category A listed along with nos 1-11 Bellevue Crescent. The terrace was listed on 22 September 1965 ref: 28285.

The site is within the Edinburgh World Heritage Site.

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

2.2 Site History

07 June 2012 - Planning permission granted in retrospect to erect a single garage (replacing existing timber garage structure) (application reference: 12/01543/FUL).

15 August 2013 - Change of use to form residential studio flat. Refused (application reference:13/1863/FUL).

19 December 2013 - Appeal against refusal for a change of use to form residential studio flat accommodation. Dismissed (application reference:13/00091/REF).

11 June 2014 - Planning permission refused for change of use from domestic garage to office accommodation (application reference:14/1419/FUL). 20 August 2014 - Appeal to Local Review Body against refusal for proposed change of use from domestic garage to office accommodation. Decision to refuse Upheld.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 12 15/00700/FUL

5 February 2015 - Proposed change of use of domestic lockup to form studio office accommodation. Declined to determine, as it was regarded that the primacy of the local plan amenity policies of the previous refusal had not changed and taking this building and the use on its own merits, no new material issues had arisen since the last decision (application reference:15/00147/FUL).

Nearby site

8 East Scotland Street Lane (rear of 3 Bellevue Crescent) - Consent granted to change the use of a lock-up garage to studio office accommodation. Approved 27 March 2013. The report of handling indicated that there was no impact on residential amenity, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the qualities of the World Heritage Site, the setting of the listed building or road safety (application reference 12/03242/FUL). Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The proposal is to change the use of a lock-up garage to a Class 2 studio office and does not include application for the structure which has previously been consented and subject to some enforcement action regarding its dimensions and materials, which have been resolved. The existing structure would require no further modification to allow it to be used as an office.

Applicant's Supporting Statement

There is a full document available to view on the Council's on-line service. This refers to precedent and Policies Emp1 and ENV6 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan, amongst other issues.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the proposed use is acceptable in principle in this location;

b) there are any amenity issues;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 12 15/00700/FUL

c) there are any transport or highway issues;

d) there will be any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the Edinburgh World Heritage Site - Northern New Town;

e) the representations submitted have been addressed; and

f) there are any equality or human rights issues to consider. a) Principle of Use

The site is located within the Urban Area of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. Policy Hou8 states that developments, including changes of use, which would have a materially detrimental effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, will not be permitted.

The use as an office is not compatible with the residential use of the area because it is an isolated office use in the midst of residential land, on a lane serving predominantly domestic uses. Commercial use in this location does not meet with Policy Hou8. It is contrary to other local plan policies and non-statutory guidance relating to the character of the conservation area and amenity, as set out below. It is not easily accessible and is not close to transport links.

The introduction of a commercial use, albeit small, in this residential area represents a non-conforming use in a predominantly residential area and is therefore not acceptable in principle. The Council declined to determine the previous application based on the primacy of this local plan policy but the agent has claimed that the presence of the studio office at 8 East Scotland Street Lane is a material consideration and so the Council has undertaken to address this point in this resubmission. b) Amenity

This application is for a change of use only; the physical alterations and the impact this may have on neighbouring properties is not the subject of assessment in this application. The impact of the use on the residential area is such that this office use, together with that already approved could compound such uses in lock-up garages in this lane contrary to Policy Hou8 as the use would be inappropriate in this mainly residential area leading to more noise and disturbance in a quiet part of the conservation area, to the detriment of residential amenity. The building does not have any windows so privacy to neighbours is not a problem. c) Transport

The studio flat does not have any parking provision. However, there is no minimum parking standard in this location and there is plenty of on street parking capacity in the vicinity. Transport has no objection to the proposal and there is no significant impact on road safety due to the low level of movements likely to be generated by the development; and little impact on pedestrian safety as a result.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 12 15/00700/FUL d) New Town Conservation Area Character Appraisal

This document states that the essential character of the area is constituted by : the grid hierarchy of ground streets, lanes and mews throughout the conservation area. Also by: ...formal geometric grid enclosed gardens and larger informal grid edge gardens soften the classical discipline of the buildings. Under architectural character it states that: the retention of mews and mews lanes, largely in their original form contributes to the character of the area.

Where new office development has been approved in lanes within the New Town Conservation Area, this has been generally in mews lanes where residential/commercial use has already been established or is historic in character. The lane in question is not an established commercial, or residential mews development lane as found elsewhere within the New Town but is a back lane serving principally lock-up garages and the local tennis club. Office use in this location would not preserve the character of this particular lane.

It is out of character with the overall use of the lane and the wider conservation area and the pattern and distribution of uses within the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. e) Representations

Material comments:

Principle - the matters of principle of development have been addressed in paragraph a) above.

Access - Access is via a substandard lane but there is no objection to the use being served by it because it is of such a small scale and will not generate much traffic.

Class 2 use - visiting members of the public. The applicant has clarified that the proposed use is Class 2. Therefore despite the use proposed as a studio office, the building could be used by the applicant for several types of financial or professional offices, including an estate agent, dentist and betting shop without further consent and to which members of the public could visit. This would be inappropriate for the residential area and amenity; and is not acceptable. The above points are addressed in paragraph a) of the assessment above.

Scale and compatibility (Emp1) - Whilst the scale of the proposed use is small, it does not comply with the character of the local environment (Hou8). Policies EMP1 and EMP 4 are not relevant to this case given the small scale of the commercial development. The scale of the development is small but the type of use is out of place in a predominantly residential rear lane. The fact that there are some other business uses in the surrounding main streets has no direct relationship with the lane. The only exception is the already approved studio office lock-up at the end of the lane. This has been addressed in paragraph a) of the assessment above.

Precedent - The applicant states that this application is no different to that approved at the garage lock-up at the end of the lane at 8 Scotland Street Lane (12/3242/FUL).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 12 15/00700/FUL

The use has previously been refused in June 2014 and an appeal against refusal was dismissed in August of that year by the Local Review Body which was of the opinion that no material consideration had been presented in the request for a review which would lead to it to overturn the determination by the Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Observing previous LRB and Scot Reporters decisions - The previous decisions on this site have been for refusal and the Council, supported by the DPEA, have been consistent in their decision to refuse both residential and commercial use of what is a garage lock-up.

Sensitivity within the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site - This is addressed in paragraph d) of the Assessment above.

Noise, traffic and privacy - this is addressed in paragraph b) and c) of the Assessment above.

Pedestrian safety - this addressed in paragraph c) of the Assessment above.

Non-material comments:

Use could be changed. This would need specific consent.

Comments about the appearance, height and setting of the building are not a material consideration in this application; nor are those referring to services such as electricity, water and sanitation. f) Equalities - the application has been assessed and has no apparent impact in terms of equalities or human rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed use will cumulatively and detrimentally impact on residential amenity and the character of the locality and will not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area, which is overwhelmingly residential.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Hou 8 in respect of Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, as this use cumulatively and detrimentally affects the living conditions or nearby residents.

2. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 6 in respect of Conservation Areas - Development, as as the use is not appropriate within the lane as the lane is ancillary to residential use and office use will not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 12 15/00700/FUL

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

This second identical application was discussed with agent prior to submission.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Advertised on 13 March 2015. 27 letters of objection have been received, including those from The Cockburn Association, The New Town and Broughton Community Council, the Northumberland Street Association, the Central Edinburgh New Town Association and the Drummond Civic Association, on the following grounds:-

Material comments:

 Georgian Terrace and gardens not suitable for additional office or residential units - overdevelopment and out of place. This has been addressed in paragraph a) of the Assessment in this report.

 Confirmation of Class 2 may allow inappropriate uses where members of the public can visit.

 Use contrary to Policy Emp 1 - Scale and compatibility with local environment.

 Precedent of other garage 12/3242/FUL different to this case. This has been addressed in paragraph e) of the Assessment in this report.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 12 15/00700/FUL

 Disregards sensitivity of Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. This is addressed in paragraph d) in the Assessment of this report.

 Extra noise - tranquility and privacy affected. This has been addressed in paragraph b) of the Assessment in this report.

 Extra traffic and parking/Safety of young Tennis club members walking in the lane/Insufficient access and infrastructure/services in narrow lane to support such uses. This has been addressed in paragraph e) in the Assessment in this report.

Non-material comments:

 Lack of confidence in overall planning and enforcement process.

 View of LRB and the Scottish Reporter in the most recent residential development case on this site need to be observed.

 Maybe used as a flat even if consent granted for studio office.

 Building mundane in appearance.

 Same building previously rejected.

 Setting of other buildings.

 Built higher than submitted drawings.

 No justification for individual adoption of the lane by the applicant.

 Crudely constructed glass front.

 Unclear if proper electricity, water and sanitation conform to Council regulations. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 12 15/00700/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site is allocated as Urban Area in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 4 March 2015

Drawing numbers/Scheme 01 - 06,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Duncan Robertson, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3560 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

Policy Hou 8 (Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas) establishes a presumption against development which would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 12 15/00700/FUL

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 12 15/00700/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Transport

No objections: East Scotland Street Lane is within the controlled parking zone and is subject to waiting loading restrictions during controlled times which broadly coincide with the normal office working hours therefore on street parking associated with the office will be controlled.. With regards to the loss of parking associated with the existing use as a garage it is understood that the garage has not been used for the parking of vehicles for some time therefore no vehicles will be displaced.

Environmental Assessment

The applicant proposes the change of use of a domestic garage to office accommodation. The garage is located approximately 30m to the rear of a tenement building, close to only other domestic garages and a tennis club.

Residential amenity is unlikely to be affected by this change of use; therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objection to this proposed development.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 12 15/00700/FUL

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 12 15/00700/FUL Development Management Sub-Committee

10:00am Wednesday 3 June 2015

Protocol Note for Hearing

Planning Application No. 14/05075/FUL

40 Stanley Place, Edinburgh

Item number 8.1(a) Report number Ward City Centre

Carol Campbell Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance

Contacts: Stephen Broughton / Blair Ritchie Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Tel: 0131 529 4261 / 0131 529 4085 Summary

Protocol Note for Hearing

Summary

The Council is committed to extending public involvement in the planning process. Hearings allow members of the public to put their views on planning applications direct to the Councillors on the Development Management Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee members have a report on the planning application which contains a summary of the comments received from the public. Copies of the letters are available for Councillors to view in the group rooms. Committee Protocol for Hearings

The Planning Committee on 19 May 2011 agreed a general protocol within which to conduct hearings of planning applications as follows:

- Presentation by Acting Head of 15 minutes Planning and Building Standards

- Presentation by Community Council 15 minutes

- Presentations by Other Parties 5 minutes, each party

- Questions by Members of the Sub-Committee

- Presentation by Applicant 15 minutes

- Presentation by Ward Councillors 5 minutes each member

- Questions by Members of the Sub- Committee

- Debate and decision by members of the Sub-Committee

Order of Speakers for this Hearing

1 Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards 10:05 - 10:25 presentation of report

2 Objectors Craigentinny/Meadowbank Community Council 10:30 - 10:45

2 Royal Park Terrace and Spring Gardens 10.50 – 10.55 Residents Association - Lorna Ewan

3 Alex Jones – organiser of petition 11.00 – 11.05

4 Graham Whiteside – representing the traders of 11.10 – 11.15 Abbeyhill area

5 Applicant - Fortis Developments Ltd. Agent – Fiona Clandillon, Ryden 11:20 – 11:35

6 Ward Councillors Councillor Alex Lunn 11:40 – 11:45 Councillor Joan Griffiths 11:50 – 11:55 Councillor Stefan Tymkewycz 12.00 – 12.05

7 Debate and Decision on Application by Sub- 12:10 Committee

Scheduled times are approximate but within this the time limits for speakers will have to be enforced – speakers will be reminded when they have 1 minute remaining. Speakers should keep to “material planning matters” that the Sub-Committee can take into account. Any visual material must be submitted to Committee Services at least 24 hours before the meeting. Decisions will generally be to approve or refuse. Conditions of approval or reasons for refusal may be considered at a subsequent meeting. If the application is continued for further information, the Hearing will not be re- opened at a later stage and contributors will not be invited to speak again. In such cases, the public can attend the meeting to observe the discussion from the gallery. Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/05075/FUL At 40 Stanley Place, Edinburgh, EH7 5TB Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 93no units of student accommodation with ancillary services.

Item number Report number

Wards A14 - Craigentinny/Duddingston

Summary

The proposal complies with the development plan, the Council's Guidance for Student Housing and Edinburgh Design Guidance. The scale, form and design are satisfactory. There is no unacceptable loss of residential amenity and the proposal provides a satisfactory level of amenity for the new occupiers. There are no road safety or parking issues. No impact on equalities or human rights was identified. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 22.04.2015.

This application has been continued for a hearing to give all parties the opportunity to address the Committee. Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD1, CITD3, CITD4, CITH10, NSG, NSGD02,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site lies at the eastern end of Stanley Place and is 0.26 hectares of land presently occupied by derelict church and vacant commercial buildings. To the south lies a busy railway line. Residential development lies to the north and east. To the west lies a commercial business.

2.2 Site History

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

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application is for full planning permission to demolish the existing buildings and the erection of a building for 93 units of student accommodation with ancillary services.

The proposed building would be flat roofed, linear in form and occupy virtually the full length of the application site. It would measure 96 metres in length, 15 metres wide and 12 metres high. It would be 4 storeys in height but stepped down to 3 storeys at its eastern end closest to the existing residential properties. The mass would be articulated into smaller volumes remaining sympathetic in scale to the flats in the immediate surrounding area. On the ground floor a reception, office area, gym and 16 units of student accommodation are proposed in addition to cycle storage and laundry facilities. A communal lounge would be positioned to the rear. On the first, second and third floors more student accommodation is proposed with a communal lounge on each floor facing to the railway line.

Landscaping is proposed in the form of trees and planting to the rear separating the building from the railway line and paving is proposed to the front.

Vehicle access to the site is from Stanley Street. There are 9 car parking spaces and secure motorcycle is proposed within the site. Cycle parking is also proposed for each student.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 23 14/05075/FUL

A 24 hour management security system is proposed with an entry door system being operated from Stanley Street. A gate would be formed at the eastern end of the site leading to the existing footpath connecting the site to Holyrood Park.

The proposed materials are brick and metal cladding on the elevations, dark grey upvc framed windows and doors, curtain wall panels and glazing.

Supporting Information

The application is supported by the following documents:

 Drainage layout;  Shadow Study;  Design and Access Statement;  Noise and Vibration Assessment;  Noise Assessment Addendum; and  Planning Statement.

These are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards Online Services.

3.2 Determining Issues

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

(a) the principle of the development is acceptable;

(b) the proposed scale, design and materials are acceptable;

(d) the proposal is acceptable in terms of road safety and parking;

(e) the proposal is acceptable in terms of archaeology;

(f) the proposal is acceptable in terms of equalities and human rights;

(g) there are any other issues and

(h) material representations have been addressed.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 23 14/05075/FUL a) Principle of Development

The site lies within the urban area of Edinburgh City Local Plan where Policy Hou 10 states that planning permission will be granted for purpose built student accommodation where:

a) the location is appropriate in terms of access to public transport and university and college facilities; and

b) the proposal will not result in an excessive concentration of student accommodation in any one locality.

The non-statutory guideline on student housing provides guidance for interpreting policy Hou 10 and is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The criteria in policy Hou 10 are applied to proposals for student accommodation using the locational guidance set out in the guideline.

The site does not lie adjacent to a main campus however it does lie within close proximity to London Road which is well served by public transport leading to university and college campuses across the city and to Jewel and Esk College and Queen Margaret University in East Lothian. Furthermore it is short walk to Holyrood Park which ensures a short walk (30mins) or cycle (15mins) to the main Edinburgh University campus. The proposal complies with part a) of Policy Hou10 of Edinburgh City Local Plan.

To comply with the policy, both criteria a) and b) are required to be met. Criterion b) states that the proposal must not result in an excessive concentration of student accommodation in any one locality. The local plan does not define a percentage figure above which it is concluded that there is an excessive concentration of student accommodation in any one locality. However, the Student Housing non-statutory guidance states that in locations with good access to university and college facilities by public transport, purpose-built student accommodation will be acceptable provided it does not result in a student population of 30% or more in the locality.

In assessing the degree of concentration of student accommodation in an area, the supporting text of policy Hou 10 sets out that the Council is required to take into account the nature of the locality in terms of mix of land use and housing types, and the existing and proposed number of students in the locality. The nature of the locality is predominantly flats and houses. The site is located within two data zones; S01002151 and S01002163. Where a proposed site straddles or lies along the boundary of two or more data zones, the data is combined to provide a more realistic representation of the locality in which the site is located. The figures have been combined for both data zones, providing a total concentration of 11.95%. An additional 93 bed spaces will increase this further to 15%. This figure is acceptable as it does not result in a student population of 30% or more in the locality.

The proposal complies with Policy Hou 10 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 23 14/05075/FUL b) Scale, Design and Materials

In assessing the scale and form of the proposal, policies Des 1 and Des 3 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan provide a robust framework for assessing design quality.

Policy Des 1 states that planning permission will be granted for development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create or contribute towards a high quality, sustainable living environment. In terms of policy Des 1, the surrounding built environment is an urban form with a mix of building materials. The layout of the proposed development contributes towards the urban form by forming a strong frontage onto Stanley Place. The design of the proposed frontage demonstrates a clear design concept where the architecture includes strong contemporary elements and this is appropriate in its context. The landscaping and open space provided within the site has been well considered and designed to a high standard.

Policy Des 3 states that developments should have a positive impact on their setting having regard to the positioning of buildings on the site, their height, scale and form, materials and detailing and wider townscape and impact on views. In assessing the development against this policy, the positioning of the buildings is appropriate in creating a strong frontage. The height of the building is sympathetic to the area. It is mainly 4 storeys in height which is greater than the existing residential properties and is 3 storeys at the eastern end closest the existing residential properties. The proposal would define the clear streetscape within Stanley Place with a continuous yet set back urban frontage. The building would be flat roofed and finished in brick in keeping with the context. The windows would have vertical emphasis large glazed areas and communal facilities would animate the ground floor. The projecting cones provide cover for the buildings entrances and exits. Large areas of glazing to the south elevation are to maximise light and views and to provide solar gain. The south elevation also acts as a noise buffer to the adjacent railway line.

In conclusion, the impact of the development on its setting, the redevelopment of the site will not have a detrimental impact on the setting and wider townscape. The design and materials of the development are of a high quality and the development accords with policies Des 1 and Des 3 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan. c) Residential Amenity

Rail Noise

The site is adjacent to a railway line so a noise impact assessment was carried out to investigate the likely affects vibration from rail traffic may have on the proposed development. The noise impact assessment indicates that there is less than low probability of adverse comment during the daytime and low probability of adverse comment during the night time which indicates that there are vibration constraints at this site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 23 14/05075/FUL

To ensure adequate attenuation to internal noise levels within units from railway noise, the noise impact assessment states that the internal stud walls to the units must be constructed with minimum 2x12.5mm plasterboard either side of 48mm studs with 25mm acoustic partition roll in the cavity, standard double glazing, and seals around entrance doors. It is recommended that a condition it is attached requiring that these mitigation measures are achieved.

A number of units have windows on the eastern facade of the building with a line of site of the railway line. For these units the facade, including glazing will need to reduce the external noise level by 38dB to ensure that maximum noise levels during the night-time are within the specified limit. The applicant has confirmed that a glazing unit of the following minimum measurements will be installed to ensure that the above level of attenuation is achieved 10mm/16mm/12.4mm. It is recommended that a condition is attached to ensure these mitigation measures are achieved.

The units on the facade of the building facing away from the railway line will benefit from attenuation by the building structure itself. For these units the facade, including glazing, will need to reduce the external noise level by 28dB to ensure that maximum noise levels during the night-time are within the specified limit. The applicant has confirmed that a standard glazing unit of 4mm/12mm/6mm will be installed to ensure that the above level of attenuation is achieved. It is recommended that a condition is attached to ensure these mitigation measures are achieved.

There is a corridor between the facade overlooking the railway line and the entrance door to the proposed accommodation units to reduce the noise levels from the railway line. The proposed layout of the building shows that the proposed flats are protected at the facade overlooking the railway by an isolating corridor between the facade and the entrance doors to the flats. Windows to units do not look out onto the corridor.

The noise impact assessment has also addressed the potential for train noise being reflected from the facade of the proposed building and impacting upon properties across the railway line (Spring Gardens).

The noise impact assessment has demonstrated that noise levels will only increase by 1dB at the existing residential properties on Spring Gardens due to noise reflecting from the facade of the proposed new development. This increase will be imperceptible to those residents and Environmental Assessment is satisfied that this proposed development will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the Spring Gardens residents.

Commercial Noise

To the west of the site there is a Class 4 use which is currently a rickshaw depot with associated maintenance activities. The main noise generating activities are likely to comprise repairs to rickshaws which may involve the use of power tools. The applicant has pointed out that the depot is in an existing residential area albeit this proposal will bring residential units closer.

To ensure that an open window noise level can be achieved it is proposed to provide a double skin window system to the affected facade of the proposed building.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 23 14/05075/FUL

This is a means of maintaining ventilation with open windows, but achieving better attenuation because of the additional skin. The detailing of the double skin façade should be two leafs of glazing separated by airspace. There would be openable sections in each leaf to provide ventilation, the openings being offset or staggered to maximise the acoustic attenuation. The soffit and vertical reveals are to be lined with acoustically absorbent treatment to further enhance the attenuation.

The treatment must be applied to all windows to apartments at the western extent of the proposed building (11no. windows in total). The double skin façade would be expected to provide a reduction of around 40 dB when the windows are closed, and around 20 dB when opened. It is recommended that a condition is attached to ensure these mitigation measures are achieved.

Local Air Quality

The application has also been considered in terms of the impact it may have on air quality. The application includes the introduction of parking areas for 9 resident’s car parking spaces. The Council is currently reviewing the parking standards and it is anticipated that these will incorporate a provision to install electric vehicle charging points throughout all types of development. The development is well placed to encourage good use of electric vehicle charging points. Air Quality on and surrounding London Road is of concern to Environmental Assessment and any measure to decrease traffic related pollution affecting this area is supported. The agent for the application has previously confirmed that they would be willing to introduce electric vehicle charging points in an attempt to off-set the impacts of increased car trips in and around the local area.

Daylighting

The Design Guidance states that adequate daylighting will be maintained to the existing buildings where the measure of daylighting falling on the wall (the Vertical Sky Component) does not fall below 27%. This standard can be achieved where the new development is kept below a 25 degree line from the midpoint of an existing window. The proposal meets this requirement for both 17 Stanley Place and 15 Sunnybank Terrace which the closest residential properties. Daylighting to side or gable windows is not protected by the guidance.

Sunlight

New buildings should be laid out so that reasonable levels of sunlight are maintained to existing gardens and spaces. A sunlight assessment was carried out which confirms that the proposal will not generate any additional overshadowing to driveways and gardens of Stanley Place and the gardens of Taylor Place.

With regard to Sunnybank Terrace, in the late hours of the afternoon the proposal causes greater overshadowing than the existing church but still maintains an acceptable level of sunlight to gardens and amenity spaces in accordance with the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Privacy

The proposed development lies 18 metres from the adjacent residential development which complies with the distance standards set out in the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Amenity Space for New Occupiers

The new building is dual aspect. Open space is provided in the form of landscaped area to the rear of the building but given its nature and proximity to the railway line this would not be usable. However, the proposal is located in close proximity to Holyrood Park and a gym is provided for the students use.

The proposal maintains an acceptable level of residential amenity. A satisfactory level of amenity is provided for the new occupiers. d) Road safety and parking

The proposal includes the provision of nine car parking to the located to the front of the proposed building. This figure complies with the Council's approved guidelines. On- street parking is also proposed but as this forms part of the road it would be available for all road users and may not be available at all times to the residents of this development. The existing parking controls in the adjacent street are sufficient to control overspill parking. Four secure motorcycle spaces and cycle parking for all students is provided within the site. Transport Planning offer no objections to the proposal subject to a contribution of £2000 for a redetermination order for sections of the footway and carriageway and Draft Travel Plan. It is recommended that condition be attached relating to these factors. e) Archaeology

The Archaeologist has confirmed that there is a potential that there may be some remains of archaeological interest on the site. It is therefore recommended that a condition be attached relating to a programme of archaeological works for the site. f) Equalities and Human Rights Impacts.

This application was assessed in terms of equalities and human rights. No impact was identified. An Equality and Rights Impact Assessment Summary is available to view on Planning and Building Standards online services. g) Any other issues

Due to the historic land use a condition is recommended to ensure contaminated land in adequately investigated. h) Public Comments

Material considerations

 principle of the development - there are too many projects for student housing - assessed in section 3.3a);

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 23 14/05075/FUL

 scale, form and design-assessed in section 3.3b);  road safety issues - traffic and car parking assessed in section 3.3d); and  loss of residential amenity - loss of light/overshadowing, increased noise from railway as noise reflected from the new building to neighbouring properties, loss of privacy-assessed in section 3.3c).

Non-material considerations

 antisocial behaviour;  loss of view; and  decrease in property value.

Community Council

Craigentinny and Meadowbank Community Council object to the application as it considers that proposal is too close to the railway to achieve an acceptable level of accommodation. Due to the height of the building and proximity to existing buildings this would be detrimental to the existing amenity of the residents living in Stanley Place. The amount of existing student housing exceeds the Council standards - assessed in sections 3.3a, 3.3c).

Conclusion

The proposal complies with the development plan and the Council's Guidance for Student Housing and Edinburgh Design Guidance. The scale, form and design are satisfactory. There is no loss of residential amenity and the proposal provides a satisfactory level of amenity to the new occupiers subject to a condition requiring mitigation measures being undertaken. There are no road safety or roads issues. No impact on equalities or human rights was identified. There are no other material considerations which outweigh this conclusion.

Addendum to Assessment

At its meeting on 22 April 2015 Development Management Sub-Committee continued the application for a site visit and hearing.

The Development Management Sub-Committee also requested that the noise report prepared by AECON on behalf of the Spring Gardens and Royal Park Terrace Residents Association be assessed by Environmental Assessment and the findings reported to the Development Management Sub-Committee.

Environmental Assessment has reviewed the assessment of the noise reports in support of the application in addition to the supplementary information produced by AECOM and confirms that the conclusions contained in the original noise reports submitted as part of the application are acceptable and that the proposal maintains an acceptable level of residential amenity and a satisfactory level of amenity is provided for the new occupiers.

The site was visited on 26 May 2015.

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 23 14/05075/FUL

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives Conditions:-

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

2. i) Prior to the commencement of construction works on site:

b) Where necessary, a detailed schedule of any required remedial and/or protective measures, including their programming, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

3. Before the building is occupied the following noise protection measures to the proposed development, as defined in the SLR 'Noise and Vibration Assessment' report (Ref 415.04479.00001), dated January 2015 & SLR 'Noise and Vibration Assessment' report (Ref 415.05229.00001- REV 3), dated January 2015 shall be carried out in full:

 The internal stud walls to the flats must be constructed with minimum 2x12.5mm plasterboard either side of 48mm studs with 25mm acoustic partition roll in the cavity, entrance doors with seals around will be required as a minimum to ensure adequate attenuation to internal noise levels within flats from railway noise.

 Glazing units with a minimum insulation value of 10mm/16mm/12.4mm double glazing should be installed for the external glazing on the eastern facade

 Glazing units shall be installed to provide a double skin window system to the windows of apartments on the western facade of the proposed building. The glazing shall be a double skin façade with two leafs of glazing separated by airspace. The glazing shall be openable in sections so that each leaf can provide ventilation, the openings being capable of being offset or staggered. The soffit and vertical reveals must be lined with acoustically absorbent treatment. The double skin façade must be capable of providing a minimal reduction of 40 dB when the windows are closed, and 20 dB when opened.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Reasons:-

1. In order to accord with the statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts.

2. In order to ensure that the site is suitable for redevelopment, given the nature of previous uses/processes on the site.

3. In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the development.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

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

4. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to:

a. Provide a contribution of £2,000 to progress a suitable order to redetermine sections of footway and carriageway as required for the development. The agreement will include provision by the applicant to the Council of a redetermination plan to enable the order to be advertised; and; b. A Draft Travel Plan to be submitted to the Council prior to first occupation and a Final Travel Plan to be submitted within 12 months of that date.

5. The works to form the laybys and footways on Stanley Place will require separate application for Road Construction Consent and 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.

6. Short sections of parking restrictions should be introduced at the proposed footway build out locations, to maintain two way traffic at this location.

7. To the West of the development the footway bounding No 49 should be upgraded with suitable kerb up stand with bollards. Reason to provide adequate footway given the increase of pedestrians that will be using this route and to discourage motorists from parking their vehicles on it.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 23 14/05075/FUL

8. The applicant must be informed that the proposed on-street spaces on Stanley Place cannot be allocated to individual properties, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will form part of the road and as such will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-street spaces, whether the road extension has been adopted or not. The developer is expected to make this clear to prospective residents and tenants.

9. The proposed cycle parking to be to the Council's satisfaction regarding specification, design, security and location.

10. Any gate or gates must open inwards onto the property. The doors linking to the existing footpath to the east of the site must not open outwards.

11. Electric vehicle charging outlets (wall or ground mounted) should be of the following standard:

Type 2 (EN62196-2), Mode 3 (EN61851-1) compliant and be twin outlet. With the ability to supply 22 kW (32 Amps) AC - Three Phase power and have the ability to be de rated to supply 11 kW to each outlet when both are in use. Where this is not possible then 7 kW (32 Amps) AC - Single Phase chargers that have the ability to deliver power of 7 kW capacity to each outlet simultaneously.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 23 14/05075/FUL

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

Prior to the application being submitted the applicant carried out a public exhibition advising the residents of the forthcoming application. Following the neighbour notification 60 letters of representation were received. Fifty one letters of objection were received from Sheila Gilmore MP, Kenny MacAskill MSP, The Cockburn Association, Craigentiny and Meadowbank Community Council, Spring Gardens and Royal Park Terrace Residents Association, neighbours and a letter enclosing a petition with 146 signatures. Nine letters of support were received.

Material Representations objecting

 principle of the development - are there too many projects for student housing already;  scale, form and design;  road safety issues - traffic and car parking; and  loss of residential amenity - loss of light overshadowing , increased noise from railway as noise reflected from the new building to neighbouring properties, loss of privacy.

Material Representations in Support

 benefits of the proposal;  employment opportunities; and  improve derelict site.

Non-Material Representations

 antisocial behaviour;  loss of view; and  decrease in property value.

Community Council

Craigentinny and Meadowbank Community Council object to the application as it considers the proposal is too close to the railway to achieve an acceptable level of accommodation.

The height of the proposed building and proximity to existing buildings would be detrimental to the existing amenity of the residents living in Stanley Place. The amount of student housing exceeds the Council's standards.

Background reading/external references

 To view details of the application go to  Planning and Building Standards online services  Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan  Planning guidelines

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 13 of 23 14/05075/FUL

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals  Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 14 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies within the urban area of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 8 December 2014

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1-10,

Scheme 1

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Jennifer Zochowska, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3793 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

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

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

Policy Hou 10 (Student Housing) supports provision of student housing on suitable sites.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 15 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Archaeology Further to your consultation request I would like to make the following comments and recommendations concerning this application to demolish the existing buildings and construction of 93units for student accommodation with ancillary services.

The site is occupied by the recently fire damaged late 19th century the Episcopal Church Of the Holy Spirit, part of the Victoria and development of the area which took place in the second half of the 19th century The 1876 & 1893 OS maps of the site depict in addition to the church a range of buildings occupying the site including tenements and possible small mission hall. Previous to this the site is depicted on General Roy's mid-18th century map of Scotland as open ground located to the rear of the post-medieval settlement of Abbeyhill.

Accordingly 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 ENV4, ENV8 & ENV9. The aim should be to preserve archaeological remains in situ as a first option, but alternatively where this is not possible, archaeological excavation or an appropriate level of recording may be an acceptable alternative.

It is considered that on current information due to the severe affect to of the recent fire, that the loss of this former church is regarded as having a moderate archaeological impact. It is therefore considered essential that a programme archaeological historic building survey (level 2: annotated phased plans/elevations, photographic and written survey) of the existing building prior to its demolition is undertaken. This archaeological building survey work must also be linked to an appropriate programme of archaeological excavation work undertaken as part of the demolition process and prior to development. This is in order to fully excavate, record and analysis any significant buried remains affected by ground breaking works associated with the Victorian development of the site and possible earlier Abbeyhill settlement.

It is recommended that that the following condition is attached to this consent to ensure that a programme of archaeological works is undertaken prior to construction.

'No development shall take place on the site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (historic building survey, excavation, reporting and analysis) in accordance with a written scheme of

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 16 of 23 14/05075/FUL investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.'

Please contact me if you require any further information.

Transport Planning I have no objections to the application subject to the following being included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. The works to form the laybys and footways on Stanley Place will require separate application for Road Construction Consent and 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.; 2. Short sections of parking restrictions should be introduced at the proposed footway build out locations. Reason to maintain two way traffic at this location; 3. The disabled bay at the most eastern section of the development may be difficult for drivers to manoeuvre given the location of the bin store; 4. To the West of the development the footway bounding No 49 should be upgraded with suitable kerb up stand with bollards. Reason to provide adequate footway giventhe increase of pedestrians that will be using this route and to discourage motorists from parking their vehicles on it. 5. The applicant must be informed that the proposed on-street spaces on Stanley Place cannot be allocated to individual properties, nor can they be the subject of sale or rent. The spaces will form part of the road and as such will be available to all road users. Private enforcement is illegal and only the Council as roads authority has the legal right to control on-street spaces, whether the road extension has been adopted or not. The developer is expected to make this clear to prospective residents and tenants; 6. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to: a. Provide a contribution of £2,000 to progress a suitable order to redetermine sections of footway and carriageway as required for the development. The agreement to include provision by the applicant to the Council of a redetermination plan to enable the order to be advertised. b. A Draft Travel Plan to be submitted to the Council prior to first occupation and a Final Travel Plan to be submitted within 12 months of that date; 7. The proposed cycle parking to be to the Council's satisfaction regarding specification, design, security and location; 8. Any gate or gates must open inwards onto the property. The doors linking to the existing footpath to the east of the site must not open outwards.

Note Minimum car parking provision for student accommodation this Zone (3a), as per the Council's approved guidelines, is 1 per 12 beds and 1 per 4 staff. For 93 beds this equates to 8 student spaces. It is unclear from the submitted documentation what

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 17 of 23 14/05075/FUL staffing level is proposed but it is assumed less than 4 and therefore a total of 9 spaces are considered appropriate. The spaces being created on Stanley Place may not be available at all times to residents of this development (see 2 above). However, it is considered that existing parking controls in the adjacent streets are sufficient to control overspill parking.

100 secure cycle spaces are proposed and the location is well located for walking cycling and public transport access.

If you have any queries, please call Lynn Russell on 0131 529 7212 (Direct Dial).

Environmental Assessment The application proposes to site student residential properties on the site of a former factory and offices. Opposite the site to the north and east are residential properties. To the south is a well used rail track and to the west there are commercial uses at 46 Stanley Place.

Prior to this application being submitted, Environmental Assessment previously advised of concerns relating to the proximity of the nearby commercial units to the west and the rail line to the south.

Rail Noise

The applicant's noise impact assessment has investigated the likely affects vibration from rail traffic may have on the proposed development. The noise impact assessment indicates that there is less than low probability of adverse comment during the daytime and a low probability of adverse comment during the night-time which indicates that there are vibration constraints at this site.

The noise impacts assessment states that the following noise mitigation measures will be required. The internal stud walls to the flats must be constructed with a minimum 2x12.5mm plasterboard either side of 48mm studs with 25mm acoustic partition roll in the cavity, standard double glazing, entrance doors with seals around will be required as a minimum to ensure adequate attenuation to internal noise levels within flats from railway noise.

A number of flats have windows on the eastern facade of the building with a line of site of the railway line. For these flats the facade, including glazing will need to reduce the external noise level by 38dB to ensure that maximum noise levels during the night-time are within the specified limit. The applicant has confirmed that a glazing unit of the following minimum measurements will be installed to ensure that the above level of attenuation is achieved 10mm/16mm/12.4mm.

Flats on the facade of the building facing away from the railway line will benefit from attenuation by the building structure itself which. For these flats the facade, including glazing, will need to reduce the external noise level by 28dB to ensure that maximum noise levels during the night-time are within the specified limit. The applicant has confirmed that a standard glazing unit of the following minimum measurements will be installed to ensure that the above level of attenuation is achieved 4mm/12mm/6mm.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 18 of 23 14/05075/FUL

The proposed layout of the building shows that the proposed flats are protected at the facade overlooking the railway by an isolating corridor between the facade and the entrance doors to the flats. Windows to flats do not look out onto the corridor.

The noise impact assessment has demonstrated that noise levels will only increase by 1dB at the existing residential properties on Sprig Gardens due to noise reflecting from the facade of the proposed new development. This increase will be imperceptible to those residents and Environmental Assessment are satisfied that this proposed development will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the Spring Gardens residents.

Commercial Noise

There is a Class 4 use neighbouring the site to the west which is currently a rickshaw depot with associated maintenance activities. The main noise generating activities are likely to comprise repairs to rickshaws which may involve the use of power tools. The applicant has pointed out that the depot is in an existing residential area albeit this proposal will bring residential units closer.

To ensure that a open window noise level can be achieved it is proposed to provide a double skin window system to the affected facade of the proposed building. This is a means of maintaining ventilation with open windows, but achieving better attenuation because of the additional skin. The detailing of the double skin façade should be two leafs of glazing separated by airspace. There would be openable sections in each leaf to provide ventilation, the openings being offset or staggered to maximise the acoustic attenuation. The soffit and vertical reveals are to be lined with acoustically absorbent treatment to further enhance the attenuation. The treatment must be applied to all windows to apartments at the western extent of the proposed building (11no. windows in total). The double skin façade would be expected to provide a reduction of around 40 dB when the windows are closed, and around 20 dB when opened.

Local Air Quality

Additionally, Environmental Assessment has considered the application in terms of the impact it may have on air quality. The application includes the introduction of parking areas for 9 resident's car parking spaces. The Government has recently announced a commitment to low emission vehicles with regards to sustainable transport for the future. The Council is currently reviewing the parking standards and it is anticipated that these will incorporate a provision to install electric vehicle charging points throughout all types of development.

These measures contribute to improving air quality throughout the city. Low emission vehicles and specifically electric vehicles are emission free and therefore do not contribute to traffic related pollution, which is the main source of air pollution in Edinburgh. The development is well placed to encourage good use of electric vehicle charging points.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 19 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Air Quality on and surrounding London Road is of concern to this Department and any measure to decrease traffic related pollution affecting this area is supported. The agent for the application has previously confirmed that they would be willing to introduce electric vehicle charging points in an attempt to off-set the impacts of increased car trips in and around the local area. Air quality is a material planning consideration and thus Environmental Assessment will recommend that electric vehicle charging points be included.

It should be noted that up to 100% funding can be provided for this type of installation from the Energy Saving Trust, further details can be obtained from the Energy Saving Trust website; http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/Organisations/Transport/Electric- vehicles/Electric-Vehicle-Charge-Point-Funding

Contaminated Land Due to the historic land use Environmental Assessment request that a condition is attached to ensure contaminated land in adequately investigated.

Therefore, Environmental Assessment has no objections to this proposed development subject to the following conditions:

1. 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.

2. The following noise protection measures to the proposed development, as defined in the SLR 'Noise and Vibration Assessment' report (Ref 415.04479.00001), dated January 2015 & SLR 'Noise and Vibration Assessment' report (Ref 415.05229.00001- REV 3), dated January 2015:

- The internal stud walls to the flats must be constructed with minimum 2x12.5mm plasterboard either side of 48mm studs with 25mm acoustic partition roll in the cavity, entrance doors with seals around will be required as a minimum to ensure adequate attenuation to internal noise levels within flats from railway noise.

- Glazing units with a minimum insulation value of 10mm/16mm/12.4mm double glazing should be installed for the external glazing on the eastern facade

- Glazing units shall be installed to provide a double skin window system to the windows of apartments on the western facade of the proposed building. The glazing

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 20 of 23 14/05075/FUL shall be a double skin façade with two leafs of glazing separated by airspace. The glazing shall be openable in sections so that each leaf can provide ventilation, the openings being capable of being offset or staggered. The soffit and vertical reveals must be lined with acoustically absorbent treatment. The double skin façade must be capable of providing a minimal reduction of 40 dB when the windows are closed, and 20 dB when opened. shall be carried out in full and completed prior to the development being occupied.

Informative

Electric vehicle charging outlets (wall or ground mounted) should be of the following standard:

Should you wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 469 5802.

Network Rail Thank you for consulting Network Rail regarding the above development.

Whilst Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposal, due to its close proximity to the operational railway, we would request that the following matters are taken into account, and if necessary and appropriate included as conditions or advisory notes, if granting the application:

The railway can be a dangerous environment. Suitable barriers must be put in place by the applicant to prevent unauthorised and unsafe access to the railway. o If not already in place, the applicant must provide a suitable trespass proof fence of at least 1.8 metres in height adjacent to Network Rail's boundary and provision for the fence's future maintenance and renewal should be made. We recommend a 1.8 metre high 'rivetless palisade' or 'expanded mesh' fence. Network Rail's existing boundary measure must not be removed without prior permission.

The proximity and type of planting proposed are important when considering a landscaping scheme. Leaf fall in particular can greatly impact upon the reliability of the railway in certain seasons. Network Rail can provide details of planting recommendations for neighbours. o Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary.

Issues often arise where sensitive development types are sited in close proximity to the rail line.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 21 of 23 14/05075/FUL o The applicant should be aware that any proposal for noise or vibration sensitive use adjacent to the railway may result in neighbour issues arising. Every endeavour should be made by the applicant in relation to adequate protection of the uses contained within the site.

Construction works must be undertaken in a safe manner which does not disturb the operation of the neighbouring railway. Applicants must be aware of any embankments and supporting structures which are in close proximity to their development. o Details of all changes in ground levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line must be submitted to Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer for approval prior to works commencing on site. Where any works cannot be carried out in a "fail-safe" manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. by a "possession" which must be booked via Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineer and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks.

The developer must contact our Asset Protection Engineers regarding the above matters, contact details below:

Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer 151 St. Vincent Street, GLASGOW, G2 5NW Tel: 0141 555 4087 E-mail - [email protected]

We trust full cognisance will be taken of these comments. We would be grateful if Local Planning Authorities would provide a copy of the Decision Notice.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 22 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 23 of 23 14/05075/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Planning Permission 14/05155/FUL At 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh, EH10 4NR Demolish existing stone building and erect two new blocks to form four dwellings in total and erection of an electricity sub-station to the north-east corner.

Item number Report number

Wards A10 - Meadows/Morningside

Summary

The housing proposals are contrary to policies: Env5 - Demolition in Conservation Areas; Env6 - Development in Conservation Areas; Env12 - Tree Protection; Env16 - Protected Species; and Des3 - Development Design. The proposals are also contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and Edinburgh Design Guidance (in relation to position of buildings on site and garden size). As a consequence of not meeting the aforementioned policies and guidance the proposal does not comply with policy Hou1 (d).

The sub-station element is considered contrary to policies: Hou 8 - Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas; Env6 - Development in Conservation Areas; and to non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

The proposals are unacceptable for these reasons and no other issues outweigh this conclusion.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 25.03.2015.

The application was presented to Committee on 25 March 2015 and was continued for a site visit.

This took place on 26 May 2015.

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITD3, CITD4, CITE4, CITE5, CITE6, CITE12,

this application CITOS3, CITH1, CITH3, CITH4, CITT4, CITT5, CITT6, NSG, NSLBCA, NSHOU, NSGD02,

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Report

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site extends to 1100sqm and contains an unlisted stone-built villa designed by the Edinburgh architect David Rhind. The building remains largely intact and in its original condition. It faces east, into the rear of tenements on Bruntsfield Place, which have been built on its former front garden. It is set well back from Merchiston Place, which now constitutes its only access, and is screened by a high stone boundary wall to that side. Garaging has been built against the boundary wall on the west and north sides. One garage against the north wall contains a local electricity sub-station.

The site is unique in the area due to the strong dominance of the mature and healthy lime trees along its frontage, giving the site a strong landscape character. A less formal line of trees also extends southwards along the western half of the site.

The villa is currently vacant but was last used as a student union but is currently vacant.

This application site is located within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

A parallel application for Conservation Area Consent is also under consideration (Reference: 14/05156/CON). Main report

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes demolition of the stone-built 19th century villa, demolition of peripheral garages and clearance of all trees on site, and the construction of two blocks, each containing two semi-detached houses, facing northwards to Merchiston Place, creating four villas in total. Each property contains seven apartments.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 20 14/05155/FUL

The eastern pair is asymmetrical, two storeys in height, and smaller than the western pair. Each dwelling has 260sqm of floor area, with a footprint of around 95sqm. This block notionally includes the rebuilding of the facade of the existing villa as the frontage of this block.

The western block is designed as a mirrored pair, two storey and attic in height, each around 290sqm of floor area (subject to inconsistent scales from drawing to drawing). Ground coverage on each of these two plots is stated as 105sqm.

Each house has a single parking space accessed through the existing high boundary wall, with no turning area provided. Vehicles would reverse onto the carriageway.

Small rear garden areas are provided, varying in depth from 1m to 10m due to the angled boundary, and averaging around 6m deep.

Drawings were amended and supplemented during the course of the application, to clarify that the proposal includes construction of a new electricity sub-station to the north-east, replacing an existing substation enclosed within one of the garage units. This is to be of proprietary glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) modular format. The sub- station stands forward of the adjacent tenement, adjacent to a low wall.

Supporting Statements

A Design and Access Statement and Tree Condition Report were submitted with the application. These papers are available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

Do the proposals comply with the development plan?

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

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) whether the principle of demolition of this building is acceptable;

b) existing protected trees are adequately considered;

c) the principle of residential use is acceptable;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 20 14/05155/FUL

d) the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is acceptable;

e) neighbouring amenity is safeguarded;

f) amenity of the proposed units is adequate;

g) protected species are safeguarded;

h) parking and road safety is adequate;

i) the proposed sub-station is adequately considered;

j) inconsistencies between drawings, Design Statement etc are assessed;

k) other considerations are addressed;

l) comments raised have been addressed; and

m) the proposals raise any equalities or human rights issues. a) The Principle of Demolition

When considering the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area it is appropriate to determine the application in accordance with policy Env 5 of the Edinburgh City Local Plan and with the Scottish Government's Historic Environment Policy (SHEP).

Policy Env 5 - Conservation Areas, Demolition of Buildings - differentiates between buildings which make a positive contribution to the conservation area and those which do not, with a presumption against the demolition of the former, except in exceptional circumstances. The SHEP test highlights the importance of the building to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the proposals for the redevelopment of the site as the main issues.

Env 5 indicates that proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a building of merit will only be supported in exceptional circumstances. These reiterate the same three tests applied to listed buildings in policy Env2. This takes into account:

i) the condition of the building and the cost of repairing and maintaining it, in relation to its importance and to the value to be derived from its continued use (this does not have to be the same use as existing);

ii) the adequacy of efforts to retain the building in, or adapt it to, a new use that will safeguard its future, including its marketing at a price reflecting its location and condition to potential restoring purchasers, for a reasonable period (usually taken as two years); and

iii) the merits of alternative proposals for the site and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 20 14/05155/FUL

The Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 (SHEP) requires in paragraph 3.58 that, in deciding applications for conservation area consent, local authorities should take into account the importance of the building to the conservation area, and the future proposals for the site. If the building is considered to be of any architectural or historic value a positive attempt should be made to achieve its retention and re-use before any demolition proposals are seriously investigated. In some instances demolition may be considered appropriate, for instance where the building is of little or no townscape value, or where repair costs are unreasonable, or where the existing form or location makes any re-use extremely difficult. Whilst SHEP does not set out independent requirements for unlisted buildings, the same considerations apply:

 the building is of no architectural or historic merit, or  the building is incapable of repair, or  the demolition of the building serves a wider economic benefit to the community, or  the repair of the building is uneconomic and the building has been unsuccessfully marketed for a reasonable period, at a price reflecting its condition and location.

The existing building is an excellent example of a villa typical of the area, and represents one of the oldest in the entire area. It is of both architectural and historic merit and contributes to the wider character of the area.

The building is capable of repair, and appears in good condition. It is readily available for re-use over a spectrum of uses without major repair works. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the building is incapable of repair.

Redevelopment of the site does not serve a wider economic benefit to the community.

There are no guidelines specific to instances of proposed "rebuilding". Whilst a partial rebuilding of the existing facade is proposed, this cannot be considered as a mitigating factor in its own right, and is not considered in any broader manner within legislation. Legislation on demolition allows consideration of whether or not the replacement building is more appropriate to the conservation area than the existing building.

The agent argues that the siting of the existing building justifies its demolition. Acceptable reasons to justify demolition do not include poor siting of existing buildings. The building is an excellent and early example of a stone-built villa in the area, and is no more justified for demolition than any other villa in the area in policy terms. The proposed replacement buildings would be less appropriate to the character of the conservation area than the existing villa.

The principle of demolition fails to meet the basic tests required, as it proposes demolition of an original villa, important to the development history of the wider area. The villa is of high quality and in good condition. The parallel application for Conservation Area Consent is recommended for refusal.

The demolition of the existing building is not considered to be justified by the application. The demolition is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env5 - Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings, and fails to meet the SHEP test.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 20 14/05155/FUL b) Effect Upon Trees

A full tree survey and condition report was submitted, which demonstrates that the existing trees are excellent specimens and in good health. Nothing within the survey concludes that removal of the trees can be justified on arboricultural grounds as the majority of trees on site are both healthy and of very great visual significance to the conservation area.

The proposed removal of trees is not considered appropriate in the context of the value which they add to the conservation area.

Loss of trees is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env 12 - Trees - which would not support trees of this importance being lost. c) Residential Use

The site lies in a residential area and the principle of housing use is acceptable subject to other policy requirements being met.

However, in relation to the specific development proposals, whilst the overall design of the villas reflects the character of the surrounding area, due to the constrained nature of the site and scale of the proposals, the proposed redevelopment will be inappropriately spaced too close together when viewed from the street, having a squeezed in appearance, and out of character with the spatial characteristics of the villa area.

The proposal therefore fails to meet criterion d) of Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Hou1- Housing Development, and is therefore unacceptable. d) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

Merchiston and Greenhill Character Appraisal

The development [of Merchiston] was supervised by David Rhind until 1864, when he was replaced by David MacGibbon. Merchiston Place was begun by 1861.

The most regular pattern of development occurs in the predominantly rectangular grid layout on the north side of Colinton Road, between Merchiston Park and Gillsland Road.

The character of the street layout is dominated by Victorian villas.

Over and above the demolition of the building, the impact upon the conservation area can be considered as three separate effects: spatial characteristics/density of the proposal in relation to its surroundings; form and layout; and design.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 20 14/05155/FUL i) Spatial Characteristics/ Proposed Density

Whilst the site lies adjacent to the Bruntsfield and Marchmont Conservation Area (where higher densities are appropriate) it lies fully within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area, which is characterised by substantial stone villas, set in large gardens, with generous spacing between properties.

The proposal echoes the concept of the villa area to the west and north and can be readily compared. However a density comparison is not favourable.

Existing villas in the surrounding area typically occupy sites ranging from 1000sqm to 1300sqm. The two houses immediately to the west sit on smaller plots of around 600sqm each. The plot for each proposed dwelling on site averages 275sqm. The proposed density represents approximately twice the density of the densest housing in this villa area. The plot is considered inadequate to accommodate four villas.

Ground coverage of villas in the conservation area, in relation to plot size, ranges from 10% to 20%. Due to the very restricted rear gardens, but very great depth of the proposed blocks, the proposed densities range from 32% to 37.5%. This density is considered to be inappropriate to its context, being broadly twice the usual maximum ground coverage of its surroundings.

In conclusion, the density is excessive both in terms of insufficient plot per unit and in terms of net ground coverage per plot and is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env 6 - Conservation Area - Development and Edinburgh's Design Guidance on density. ii) Form and layout

The broad layout of two blocks (each designed to appear as a single villa) facing the street, may be considered appropriate, were the site larger and the proposal reflected the spatial character of the area.

The depth of the blocks, especially the western block, is excessive both in relation to neighbouring buildings and in relation to the plot size, and is therefore contrary to policy Env 6 and the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Objection was raised to the spacing of the blocks. The close spacing does occur elsewhere in the conservation area and is not an independent reason for refusal. iii) Design

The proposed frontages are a combination of rebuilding and pastiche, thereby repeating its surroundings and being in character. However, the design concept is changed to the sides and rear, and is considered to be substandard. The rear of each block is out of character with the conservation area in terms of both proportions and materials.

The design of the rear elevations is not acceptable. The design is contrary to policy Env 6 and the Edinburgh Design Guidance.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 20 14/05155/FUL e) Effect Upon Neighbouring Amenity

Due to the depth of the westmost block (well beyond the rear building line) the proposed form would overshadow the neighbouring building at 14 Merchiston Place. This effect largely derives from the decision to build the new villas far deeper than other houses on the street and is not justifiable in terms of urban design. This effect is contrary to policy Des 3 (c) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance, and is not acceptable.

On the east side, the eastern block will obscure existing windows on the gable of 8 Merchiston Place. However, gable windows are not protected in policy guidelines.

Only the overshadowing on the west side is a reason for refusal. That effect is considered contrary to policy Des3 (c) and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. f) Amenity of the Proposed Houses

The Edinburgh Design Guidance states that the spatial character of the area will be used to determine appropriate privacy distances. As the distances between the dwellings and neighbouring buildings are shorter than those of the prevailing character, privacy to neighbouring gardens fails to meet the expectations of guidance.

Privacy distances are not met in relation to rear boundaries. Gardens average 6m in depth and this is considered to be disproportionately small in relation to the size of houses proposed and in relation to the spatial pattern of the wider villa area.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the units look to open space beyond their southern boundary, development at distances below standard privacy distances would create a long-term prejudice to the neighbouring development rights. Compliance with policy is required within the boundary of the application site. Existence of open space to the south of the application site is not seen as a mitigating factor.

Garden ground is considered inadequate throughout and contrary to policy Env 6 and the Edinburgh Design Guidance. g) Protected Species

There is a possibility of bats on site within the existing unused garaging. Directives, as enshrined in UK law, require that this issue be further investigated before any approval might be considered.

Bat surveys are generally only practical in the spring, but in the absence of such information this must be considered as an additional reason for refusal. The application is therefore considered contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env16 - Protected Species.

Should Committee be minded to grant consent contrary to recommendation it should be noted that this could not be pursued without further evidence in relation to protected species on site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 20 14/05155/FUL h) Parking and Road Safety

Transport recommend refusal due to the proposed driveways being within 15m of a junction.

All driveways lie either at or within 15m of the junction of Merchiston Place and Merchiston Park. However, the existing site access lies opposite this junction. Other than vehicles approaching the junction in reverse rather than forward gear this situation is similar to that existing, and is not independently considered to be a reason for refusal.

No cycle parking provision is made. However, it is accepted that the houses are big enough to accommodate cycles internally. i) Sub-station Location and Design

A sub-station currently exists on site. There is no objection in principle to this remaining subject to suitable location. Environmental Assessment do not object subject to a condition on noise.

Due to the low wall to the north-east, adjacent to 10 Merchiston Place, the re-sited sub- station would be highly visible when approaching from the east, and would have a radical effect upon views from the adjacent house. The sub-station is considered wholly inappropriate in terms of its position relative to the neighbouring form. The sub- station is enclosed in GRP which is also considered an inappropriate material for the conservation area unless in a highly concealed location.

Detailed drawings infer that the sub-station will partly vent into the neighbouring front garden at 10 Merchiston Place.

The sub-station is inappropriate in terms of being located forward of the building line and would be visually obtrusive to the street in general and particularly in relation to the adjacent bay window.

The sub-station would cause loss of amenity to neighbouring housing, contrary to policy Hou8 and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area in its proposed position, contrary to policy Env6 and to non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. j) Inconsistencies in the Submission

Whilst it is observed that drawings are inconsistent with each other and some contradict the Design Statement, this is not, in its own right a reason for refusal.

However, were Committee minded to grant consent it would be prudent to first request improved consistency of information throughout the submission prior to final approval. k) Other Considerations

Whilst there was some local support for the removal of the former student use, this consideration does not outweigh other factors.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 20 14/05155/FUL

It is noted that the student union use has already terminated. l) Public Comments

The application attracted six representations, including objection from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. Whilst several accepted the principle of redevelopment the following issues were raised:

Material Objections

 The proposal is over-dense/ overdevelopment of the site - addressed in section 3.3. d)ii) of the Assessment;  The spacing of the villas is out of character with the area - addressed in section 3.3. d)iii) of the Assessment;  Loss of the existing villa on its original site is not justified - addressed in section 3.3 a) of the Assessment  Impact upon privacy and daylight - addressed in section 3.3 e) of the Assessment;  Location of sub-station is inappropriate - addressed in section 3.3 i) of the Assessment;  Additional traffic/ road safety concerns - addressed in section 3.3 h) of the Assessment;  Garden size is too small and out of character with the area - addressed in section 3.3 f) of the Assessment; and  The loss of the student union is welcomed - addressed in section 3.3 k) of the Assessment.

Non-material Objections

 No consultation with neighbours - this is not required under planning legislation;  Clarification required on boundary being "predominantly" retained on the western boundary - whilst this is ambiguous in the Design Statement the drawings make no mention of demolition of the boundary wall and it is presumed that this will remain. Were the application approved a condition could clarify this issue;  Where will existing recycling bins be relocated - this is outwith the remit of the applicant;  Disruption from building works - this is not a planning concern; and  Design Statement is misleading and contradicts plans - this is noted, and considered in section 3.3 j) of the Assessment.

Some supported the loss of the student union. m) Equalities and Human Rights

The proposals raise no equalities or human rights concerns.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Conclusion

Arguments regarding "saving" of the villa, or regarding the desirability of losing the former student union use, do not outweigh the considerable policy shortfalls of the proposal nor do they justify the demolition of the villa in its original location.

The proposals are unacceptable for these reasons and no other issues outweigh this conclusion.

Addendum to Assessment

The application was presented to Committee on 25 March 2015 and was continued for a site visit.

This took place on 26 May 2015.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

1. The proposals are contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env5 in respect of Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings and contrary to non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas in that the demolition of the existing Victorian villa is not justified.

2. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local plan policy Env6 - Development in Conservation Areas, and to non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as the depth and scale of the buildings and the design of the rear elevations is considered to be out of character with the area.

3. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 12 in respect of Trees, as the proposal would result in the loss of significant trees,critical to the existing character of the site.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 20 14/05155/FUL

4. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Hou4 - Density, to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env6 - Development in Conservation Areas, to non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and to non-statutory Edinburgh Design Guidance, all being in relation to inappropriate density, inappropriate depth and inadequate size of garden ground.

5. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 16 in respect of Species Protection, as the submission has failed to demonstrate that there is noeffect upon protected species (as required by European Law).

6. The proposal is contrary to section c) of Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Des3 - Development Design and to non-statutory guidelines on Guidance to Householders in that the proposal will cause overshadowing to neighbouring property to the west.

7. The proposed sub-station is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Hou8 - Inappropriate Uses in Residential Areas, due to its juxtaposition to 8/10 Merchiston Place, and to both Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env6 - Development in Conservation Areas and non-statutory guidelines on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, due to its position and appearance.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. It should be noted that a full bat survey is required were any proposal to be accepted. This is generally done in spring and a winter-time survey would serve little purpose.

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 13 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Sustainability impact

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 9 January 2015.

Six representations were received including an objection to the demolition from AHSS. Some supported the principle of redevelopment. Reasons for objection were:

 Loss of the original villa is not acceptable;  Even on a vacant site four dewllings on a site of this size is overdevelopment;  Redevelopment examples cited are not of sufficient quality for this site;  Spacing between villas is too narrow;  The sub-station location is inappropriate;  Road safety concerns/parking levels;  No neighbour consultation;  Loss of daylight;  Compromises window cleaning on the tenement to the east;  Proposal is too high;  Works to boundary walls are unclear;  Design Statement unclear and inconsistent with drawings;  Garden size too small;  Relocation of existing on-street communal bins is not explained; and  Disruption caused by building works.

Councillor Howat requested a Committee presentation.

It is noted that Scottish Power raised a late objection in relation to their late notification as joint owner. They objected on the grounds of ownership and access rights. This is not a planning concern and must be independently resolved. Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 14 of 20 14/05155/FUL

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 15 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area as shown in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 19 December 2014

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1a,2a,3a,4-8,

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Stephen Dickson, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3529 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

Policy Des 4 (Layout Design) sets criteria for assessing layout design.

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

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

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 16 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Policy Os 3 (Open Space in New Development) sets out requirements for the provision of open space in new development.

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

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

Policy Tra 6 (Design of Off-Street Car and Cycle Parking) sets criteria for assessing design of off-street car and cycle parking.

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 17 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Appendix 1

Consultations

Environmental Assessment

No objection to this proposed development, subject to the following being confirmed in a noise impact assessment:

The electrical sub-station shall be designed and constructed so that any noise complies with NR20 when measured within any nearby living apartment with the windows open for ventilation purposes.

Transport

Advise that the application be refused.

Reason:

The Council's Movement and Development guidelines state that Driveways in new developments must not be located within 15m of a junction.

Should the application be granted the following should be included as conditions or informatives as appropriate:

1. Consent should not be issued until the applicant has entered into a suitable legal agreement to provide:- a) The cost of relocating a traffic sign (est. cost £500); b) The cost of relocating a lighting column (est. cost £500); c) The cost of relocating a ticket machine (est. cost £1,000); d) Contribute the sum of £2,000 to progress the necessary traffic order to amend the controlled parking and for the remarking of all road markings in the event that the amendment is concluded; 2. A suspensive condition will be required such that no work on the formation of the access points can be commenced prior to a successful conclusion to the traffic order amendment in 1.d) above. The applicant should note that it is likely that any proposed amendment to the existing order will attract objections. There can therefore be no certainty of securing the amendments; 3. There are two utilities cabinets in the area of the proposed access points the applicant should ensure that they have approval from the utilities company and that the proposed layout does not require the cabinets to be relocated;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 18 of 20 14/05155/FUL

4. New residential properties in the extended Controlled Parking Zone, are eligible for one residents' permit per property only; 5. Access to any car parking area is to be by dropped kerb (i.e. not bell mouth); 6. A length of 2 metres nearest the road should be paved in a solid material to prevent deleterious material (e.g. loose chippings) being carried on to the road; 7. Any gate or gates must open inwards on to the property. Note that this also applies to the sub-station; 8. Any hard standing outside should be porous, to comply with 'Guidance for Householders' published in December 2012; 9. The applicant should be informed that prior to carrying out any works to form a footway crossing a Minor Roadworks consent must be applied for and secured; 10. The works to form a footway crossing must be carried out in accordance with "Development Roads - Guidelines and Specification". See pages 5, 15 & 16 of http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/704/guidance_for_householders

Note: o Current Council car parking standards for residential dwellings within this area (Zone 3a) require a minimum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling however in this instance 1 space per property is considered to be acceptable as they are also limited to one residents permit per property therefore this development should not have a detrimental impact on the existing road network. There is no maximum. o The applicant should contact the Council's Parking Operations section, John Richmond, Tel 0131 469 3765, email [email protected] to agree the position of the parking bays and sign the parking meter and for the details of the Traffic Regulation Order. o The applicant should contact the Council's Street Lighting section, Stuart McLeod, Tel 0131 458 8029, email [email protected] to agree the position of the lighting column.

With reference to the proposed sub-station, under new RAUC standards the existing footway should not be narrowed to less than 1.8m this includes when the gates are open.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 19 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 20 of 20 14/05155/FUL

Development Management Sub Committee

Wednesday 3 June 2015

Application for Conservation Area Consent 14/05156/CON At 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh, EH10 4NR To demolish existing stone villa and existing garages and storage buildings.

Item number Report number

Wards A10 - Meadows/Morningside

Summary

The demolition of an original stone villa is not justified. Demolition and redevelopment would undermine the existing street character and the character and appearance of the conservation area as a whole, contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan policy Env 5 - Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings and contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. The proposed rebuilding of the facade is not considered to outweigh this conclusion.

Outcome of previous Committee

This application was previously considered by Committee on 25.03.2015.

The application was presented to Committee on 25 March 2015 and was continued for a site visit.

This took place on 26 May 2015.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 1 of 12 14/05156/CON

Links

Policies and guidance for LPC, CITE5, NSG, NSLBCA, OTH, CRPMER,

this application

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 2 of 12 14/05156/CON

Report

Application for Conservation Area Consent 14/05156/CON At 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh, EH10 4NR To demolish existing stone villa and existing garages and storage buildings.

Recommendations

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

2.1 Site description

The site extends to just over 1100sqm and contains an unlisted stone-built villa designed by the Edinburgh architect David Rhind (dating from around 1860 and originally fronting onto Bruntsfield Place) which remains largely intact. This now faces east into the rear of late Victorian tenements on Bruntsfield Place, which have been built on its former front garden. It is set well back from Merchiston Place, which constitutes its only access, and is screened by a high stone boundary wall. Modern garaging has been built against the boundary wall on the west and north sides. One garage against the north wall contains a local electricity sub-station.

The villa is currently vacant but was last used as a student union.

This application site is located within the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area.

2.2 Site History

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

3.1 Description Of The Proposal

The application proposes demolition of a stone-built Victorian villa by Edinburgh architect David Rhind.

Demolition of peripheral garaging on the north and west sides of the site is also proposed (one of these contains an electricity sub-station serving the local area).

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 3 of 12 14/05156/CON

Supporting Statement

A Design Statement was lodged with the application. This is available to view on the Planning and Building Standards online services.

3.2 Determining Issues

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

3.3 Assessment

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

a) the demolition is justifiable in relation to the character and appearance of the conservation area;

b) public comments are addressed; and

c) equalities and human rights issues are addressed. a) Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

Merchiston and Greenhill Character Appraisal

The development [of Merchiston] was supervised by David Rhind until 1864, when he was replaced by David MacGibbon. Merchiston Place was begun by 1861.

The most regular pattern of development occurs in the predominantly rectangular grid layout on the north side of Colinton Road, between Merchiston Park and Gillsland Road.

The character of the street layout is dominated by Victorian villas.

Policy Env 5 - Conservation Areas, Demolition of Buildings- differentiates between buildings which make a positive contribution to the conservation area and those which do not, with a presumption against the demolition of the former, except in exceptional circumstances. The SHEP test highlights the importance of the building to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the proposals for the redevelopment of the site as the main issues.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 4 of 12 14/05156/CON

iii) the merits of alternative proposals for the site and whether the public benefits to be derived from allowing demolition outweigh the loss.

 the building is of no architectural or historic merit,or  the building is incapable of repair, or  the demolition of the building serves a wider economic benefit to the community, or  the repair of the building is uneconomic and the building has been unsuccessfully marketed for a reasonable period, at a price reflecting its condition and location.

Redevelopment of the site does not serve a wider economic benefit to the community.

There is no evidence to support demolition of the building under the fourth SHEP criterion, regarding inability to repair or unsuccessful marketing.

The applicant cites poor siting as one of the primary reasons to "rebuild" the existing villa. Poor siting is not one of the listed justifications in normal assessment of demolitions. The building is of considerable historic interest, is clearly in character with the existing area, and is structurally sound.

Whilst the application proposes a partial rebuilding as part of the overall redevelopment this is not a mitigating factor.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 5 of 12 14/05156/CON

SHEP states that in instances where demolition is to be followed by redevelopment, consent to demolish should in general be given only where there are acceptable proposals for the new build.

The parallel application for planning permission has assessed that the proposed new siting of blocks is unacceptable in terms of tree loss and other factors. Even if demolition were agreeable in principle, conservation area consent requires an acceptable planning permission for redevelopment to be considered in parallel. This is not the case.

The planning application associated with this proposal is also reported to this Committee. The recommendation of that parallel report is that the proposals for new build should be refused planning permission.

Demolition of the existing villa is not justified.

Demolition of the peripheral garaging is justifiable, due to their poor quality and failure to contribute to the character of the conservation area. However, the application is for the demolition of the villa and other buildings on site, and therefore the demolitions across the site must be considered as a whole.

The demolition of buildings on the site is not justified. b) Public Comments

Five representations were received including objection from AHSS.

Material Objections

 The original villa is worthy of retention and should not be demolished - considered in section 3.3 a) of the Assessment;  Demolition should not be permitted until planning permission for new build is granted - this is a prerequisite of Conservation Area Consent;  Works to the boundary walls require clarification - this would be conditioned were the application to be approved; and  Existing garages are "old and of considerable character" - this is addressed in section 3.3 a) of the Assessment.

Non-material Objections

 Parking and road safety - considered in the parallel application for planning permission;  Bin storage is not considered - this is not a matter for assessment in conservation area consent;  Was previous use for christmas tree sales authorised - this is not a matter for assessment in conservation area consent;  Existing site is covered in litter - this is not a matter for assessment in conservation area consent;  The existing boundary requires repair - this is not a matter for assessment in conservation area consent;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 6 of 12 14/05156/CON

 Drawings and design statement are inconsistent and unclear - this is not a matter for assessment in conservation area consent;  The proposal will cause overshadowing - considered in the parallel application for planning permission; and  The proposal is too dense and gardens are too small - considered in the parallel application for planning permission.

Community Council

No comments received. c) Equalities and Human Rights

No equalities or human rights issues arise in relation to the proposal.

Conclusion

Addendum to Assessment

The application was presented to Committee on 25 March 2015 and was continued for a site visit.

This took place on 26 May 2015.

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

3.4 Conditions/reasons/informatives

Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to Edinburgh City Local Plan Policy Env 5 in respect of Conservation Areas - Demolition of Buildings, as the demolition of the original villa is not justified and would undermine the character of the conservation area.

2. The proposals are contrary to non-statutory guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas as the demolition of the original villa is not justified and would undermine the character of the conservation area.

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 7 of 12 14/05156/CON

Financial impact

4.1 The financial impact has been assessed as follows:

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

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

6.1 The equalities impact has been assessed as follows:

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

7.1 The sustainability impact has been assessed as follows:

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

8.1 Pre-Application Process

Pre-application discussions took place on this application.

8.2 Publicity summary of representations and Community Council comments

The application was advertised on 9 January 2015.

Five representations were received three of which raised issues solely relating to the parallel application for planning permission and therefore being non-material in relation to Conservation Area Consent.

Two comments of relevance were received, including objection from the AHSS. Reasons for objection were:

 The existing villa is worthy of retention and should not be demolished;  The existing villa should not be demolished until a parallel application for planning permission is approved;  Demolition should not be permitted until planning permission for new build is granted;  Works to the boundary walls require clarification;  Existing garages are "old and of considerable character";  Parking and road safety;  Bin storage is not considered;  Was previous use for christmas tree sales authorised;  Existing site is covered in litter;

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 8 of 12 14/05156/CON

 The existing boundary requires repair;  Drawings and design statement are inconsistent and unclear;  The proposal will cause overshadowing; and  The proposal is too dense and gardens are too small.

Background reading/external references

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

 Edinburgh City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

 Planning guidelines

 Conservation Area Character Appraisals

 Edinburgh Local Development Plan  Scottish Planning Policy

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 9 of 12 14/05156/CON

Statutory Development Plan Provision The site lies in the Merchiston and Greenhill Conservation Area as shown in the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

Date registered 15 December 2014

Drawing numbers/Scheme 1a-3a,

Scheme 2

David R. Leslie Acting Head of Planning and Building Standards

Contact: Stephen Dickson, Senior Planning Officer E-mail:[email protected] Tel:0131 529 3529 Links - Policies

Relevant Policies:

Relevant policies of the Edinburgh City Local Plan.

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

Relevant Non-Statutory Guidelines

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

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 10 of 12 14/05156/CON

Other Relevant policy guidance

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 11 of 12 14/05156/CON

Appendix 1

Application for Conservation Area Consent 14/05156/CON At 12 Merchiston Place, Edinburgh, EH10 4NR To demolish existing stone villa and existing garages and storage buildings.

Consultations

No consultations undertaken.

Location Plan

Development Management Sub-Committee – 3 June 2015 Page 12 of 12 14/05156/CON